{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-13T06:05:05.367Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"injunction","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":3,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":2,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-goias-electoral-court-judgment-removing-councillor-suspended-over-suspected-unsupervised-ai-drafting","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'acórdão feito pelo Tribunal Regional Eleitoral de Goiás (TRE-GO), que cassou o mandato da vereadora Aava Santiago (PSB)'; 'no texto que determinou a cassação por infidelidade partidária'; 'A decisão havia sido mantida nesta terça-feira (6) e encerrava a condição suspensiva do processo'; 'Nesta sexta-feira (9), Michel Magul (PSDB) havia assumido a vaga de Aava Santiago na Câmara Municipal.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The TRE-GO judgment removed councillor Aava Santiago from office for party infidelity; it was upheld on 6 October 2026, ending its suspensive condition, and a substitute took her seat on 9 October.","causal_attribution":"G1's account of the electoral proceedings."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'No documento, a vereadora alega que no texto final da decisão há comandos, instruções e registros de conferência que revelariam o possível uso de IA com falhas na revisão humana.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A parlamentar acionou o CNJ alegando que o texto final do julgamento continha comandos de conferência, instruções e registros de revisão que indicariam possível utilização de inteligência artificial sem a supervisão humana exigida pela Resolução CNJ nº 615/2025.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The councillor alleged to the CNJ that the final text of the judgment contained commands, instructions and review records indicating the use of artificial intelligence without the human supervision required by CNJ Resolution 615/2025.","causal_attribution":"The councillor's allegation, as both outlets report it; the petition was not inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'evidencia, em tese, a existência de anotações que aparentam corresponder a instruções internas de revisão, destinadas justamente à conferência da correção de premissas fáticas e jurídicas utilizadas na construção da fundamentação do julgado'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A liminar foi concedida nesta sexta-feira (9) pelo corregedor nacional de Justiça, ministro Benedito Gonçalves.'; 'Na decisão, Benedito Gonçalves considerou plausíveis, em análise preliminar, as alegações de descumprimento das regras de governança, supervisão humana e controle da utilização de inteligência artificial no Judiciário.'; 'O corregedor determinou a suspensão cautelar dos efeitos do acórdão e dos atos administrativos dele decorrentes.'; 'O TRE-GO terá prazo de 15 dias para prestar informações sobre o caso.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 9 October 2026 the national inspector of justice found, on a preliminary analysis, the allegations of non-compliance with the CNJ's AI supervision rules plausible, writing that the passages reproduced in the petition show in theory annotations that appear to be internal review instructions; he suspended the judgment's effects and gave the TRE-GO 15 days to report.","causal_attribution":"The inspector's preliminary finding as relayed by both outlets from the same decision; it is not a finding that AI was used."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Embora Benedito Gonçalves tenha ressaltado que a medida não representa revisão do mérito nem declaração de nulidade do julgamento eleitoral'; 'A eventual utilização irregular de inteligência artificial ainda será objeto de apuração.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'A decisão liminar do CNJ possui caráter instrumental e provisório, motivada por questões formais de procedimento administrativo e governança no âmbito do tribunal.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The inspector stated that the suspension neither reviews the merits nor declares the electoral judgment void, and that the possible irregular use of AI is still to be investigated; the substitute described the injunction as provisional and procedural.","causal_attribution":"Limits stated by the inspector and the substitute; they bound how far the removal can be attributed to AI drafting."}],"effects":[{"label":"an elected councillor was removed from her seat by a judgment she says shows signs of unsupervised AI use, until the national inspector suspended it","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://g1.globo.com/go/goias/noticia/2026/10/10/cnj-suspende-a-cassacao-do-mandato-da-vereadora-aava-santiago.ghtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in full in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. G1 quotes the inspector's decision and statements from the councillor's office and the substitute; the CNJ decision and the petition were not themselves inspected.","independence_group":"g1-goias-reporting"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://jurinews.com.br/destaques-ultimas/cnj-suspende-cassacao-da-vereadora-aava-santiago-apos-suspeita-de-falhas-no-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in full in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. Jurinews reports the CNJ injunction; the decision itself was not inspected.","independence_group":"jurinews-reporting"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which passages of the judgment contain the disputed annotations, and which tool, if any, produced them.","Whether AI-drafted text affected the July 2026 merits vote or only the later judgment text.","The TRE-GO's response to the CNJ and the outcome of the CNJ investigation."],"geography":{"basis":"The removal concerns a seat on the Goiânia city council, Goiás, Brazil, decided by the Regional Electoral Court of Goiás and suspended by Brazil's National Council of Justice (G1, Jurinews). The councillor holds office in Goiânia.","court_countries":["BR"],"event_countries":["BR"],"affected_person_countries":["BR"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the national inspector of justice, after examining passages from an electoral court judgment that removed a councillor from office, found her allegation of unsupervised generative-AI drafting plausible on a preliminary analysis and suspended the judgment the day a substitute took her seat. AI use remains suspected and is attributed to her allegation and the inspector's preliminary finding.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-13"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The output at issue is text in the TRE-GO judgment about the councillor: she alleges, and G1 and Jurinews report, that the final text contained commands, instructions and review records indicating AI use without human review. The national inspector of justice, who examined the passages reproduced in her petition, wrote that they show in theory annotations that appear to be internal review instructions for checking the premises of the judgment's reasoning, and found the allegation of non-compliance with the CNJ's AI supervision rules plausible on a preliminary analysis. That judgment removed her from office until he suspended it. No tool is named, the passages are not reproduced, and AI use has not been established; the merits vote of July 2026 was made by the judges.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Goiás, Brazil: national judicial inspector suspends an electoral court judgment removing a councillor who alleged signs of unsupervised AI drafting","summary":"Goiânia city councillor Aava Santiago (PSB) told Brazil's National Council of Justice (CNJ) that the final text of a judgment of the Regional Electoral Court of Goiás (TRE-GO), which removed her from office for party infidelity, contained commands, instructions and review records indicating the use of artificial intelligence without the human supervision that CNJ Resolution 615/2025 requires. On 9 October 2026, the day a substitute took her seat, the national inspector of justice, Minister Benedito Gonçalves, found the allegations plausible on a preliminary reading, suspended the judgment and the administrative acts that followed from it, and gave the court 15 days to explain its review procedures, G1 and Jurinews report. The suspension does not review the merits of the removal, and whether AI was used irregularly has yet to be investigated.","incidentDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-10","aiSystem":"Generative artificial intelligence allegedly used in drafting the TRE-GO judgment; no tool is named, and its use is alleged by the councillor and found plausible only on a preliminary reading by the national inspector of justice","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool (suspected)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to G1 and Jurinews, a judgment that the councillor says shows signs of AI use without the required human review removed her from her council seat, and a substitute took the seat on 9 October 2026 before the national inspector of justice suspended the judgment the same day. The AI connection is her allegation, found plausible only on a preliminary reading.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the councillor removed by the judgment whose drafting is disputed. Voters and the council are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"BR-GO","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://g1.globo.com/go/goias/noticia/2026/10/10/cnj-suspende-a-cassacao-do-mandato-da-vereadora-aava-santiago.ghtml","primarySourceLabel":"G1 Goiás, 10 October 2026: CNJ suspends the removal of councillor Aava Santiago","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:09.553524+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:09.553524+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["brazil","electoral-court","suspected-judicial-ai-use","human-supervision","cnj","injunction"]},{"id":"2026-spokane-appliance-retailer-spokeswoman-ai-voice-edited-ads-without-consent-lawsuit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'But in February, George noticed on social media that Fred’s, and production company Victory Media, had created a President’s Day advertisement' and 'They were using past footage and bits and pieces from different commercials.' and '“They never once told me what they were doing or asked for my consent.” she said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The lawsuit alleges that in February, George noticed that the company's President's Day ad was one that she had not recorded' and '‘This is not my voice! These are words I never spoke.''","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In February 2026 George saw a Presidents' Day advertisement for the retailer that she had not recorded, made from past footage with words in her voice that she says she never spoke and was never asked about.","causal_attribution":"George's own account and her lawsuit's allegation; both outlets interviewed her, so it is one witness."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'We acknowledge that we used AI-assisted voice editing to make a limited number of updates to existing advertisements, primarily involving pricing and promotional changes.' and 'Victory Media did not create or publish AI-generated versions of her image or likeness'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'We believed those uses were authorized under our spokesperson agreement and were consistent with our contractual rights.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Victory Media said it had used AI-assisted voice editing to make a limited number of updates to existing advertisements, mainly pricing and promotional changes, that it believed its spokesperson agreement authorised them, and that it denies creating or publishing AI-generated versions of her image or likeness.","causal_attribution":"The company's own statement, issued through its lawyer and quoted by both outlets; one origin."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'After she raised concerns, Victory Media and Fred’s offered her an addendum to her contract that would allow them to use artificial intelligence to create more advertisements.' and 'In response, George ended her work with Fred’s Appliance'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'the company attempted to introduce an \"AI Addendum\" to her contract, which she refused. She later ended her work with the companies.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"After George raised concerns, the companies proposed a contract addendum allowing AI use, which she refused, and she ended her work with the retailer.","causal_attribution":"George's account; KREM attributes the addendum to documents it saw."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'When they use AI, it diminishes my value as a spokeswoman. I can’t monitor or stop what words are coming out of my mouth.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"George said the AI use diminishes her value as a spokeswoman because she cannot control what words come out of her mouth.","causal_attribution":"George's own statement of the effect on her."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'who filed a lawsuit in Spokane Superior Court on Tuesday.' and 'Defendants have engaged in unlawful commercial exploitation of Ms. George’s exclusive property rights involving her past work' and 'The suit names Fred’s Appliance' and 'along with Liberty Lake-based Victory Media and' and 'who is the CEO of Victory Media.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'George is seeking damages in an amount to be decided at trial, along with an injunction to prevent the companies from continuing to use her likeness.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"George sued Fred's Appliance, Victory Media and its chief executive in Spokane Superior Court, alleging unauthorised commercial use of her voice and likeness and seeking damages and an injunction.","causal_attribution":"Both outlets report the filing and quote the complaint; the complaint itself was not read, and its allegations remain allegations."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'We proactively disclosed the AI-assisted voice edits' and 'Victory Media also noted that Fred's Appliance was unaware of the edits made.' and 'we offered to compensate our former spokesperson rather than engage in costly litigation. That offer was not accepted'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Lam issued a statement later Wednesday indicating that the parties could be close to settling the matter out of court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Victory Media said it disclosed the edits when questions were raised, that Fred's Appliance was unaware of the edits, and that it offered compensation that George did not accept; its lawyer later said the parties could be close to settling.","causal_attribution":"The company's statements; George's side of the compensation offer is not reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"advertisements carried AI-edited words in the spokeswoman's voice without her consent, she says","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"spokeswoman ended her work with the retailer after refusing an AI contract addendum","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jul/01/longtime-spokeswoman-sues-freds-appliance-over-use/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-12 from the publisher page (full article); no translation was needed and the research agent (an AI) read the text directly.","independence_group":"spokesman-review"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.krem.com/article/news/local/spokeswoman-freds-appliance-sues-company-ai/293-bf7aa1fd-0da0-403c-a363-7edf3101f558","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-12 from the MSN syndicated copy of the KREM article (assets.msn.com detail AA27mfrz, provider KREM-TV Spokane); no translation was needed and the research agent (an AI) read the text directly.","independence_group":"krem"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used and how many advertisements carried edited words; the company refers to a list of known instances that is not published.","The exact dates the edited advertisements aired; the Presidents' Day spot places the first in February 2026.","Whether the contract authorised the edits, which is the dispute before the court.","Whether George's claims that her image or likeness was altered by AI, beyond the voice, are supported; the company denies them.","Whether the case settled."],"geography":{"basis":"The advertisements were for Fred's Appliance, which has stores in Spokane, Spokane Valley, Coeur d'Alene, Kennewick and Montana, and were produced by Liberty Lake-based Victory Media; George worked for the retailer in that market. The suit is in Spokane Superior Court, Washington.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the production company's own acknowledgement, quoted by The Spokesman-Review and KREM, that it used AI-assisted voice editing to change existing advertisements voiced by George, together with her account that the edits put words she never spoke in her voice without her consent and that she ended her work after refusing an AI addendum. The AI-edited voice is the described output and her loss of control over her voice and work is the reported harm. Claims stay reported because they rest on George's account, her complaint and the company's statement.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Victory Media's statement, quoted by both outlets, acknowledges \"AI-assisted voice editing to make a limited number of updates to existing advertisements, primarily involving pricing and promotional changes\". George says the Presidents' Day advertisement used words in her voice that she never recorded (\"This is not my voice! These are words I never spoke.\"). The AI-edited voice is the output that presented her as saying words she had not said, and it is what her refusal of the AI addendum, the end of her work with the retailer and her lawsuit concern. The tool is not named, and the company denies any AI alteration of her image.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Spokane: an appliance retailer's longtime spokeswoman sues after its ad agency admits AI voice edits to her ads; she says she never consented","summary":"Amber George was the spokeswoman for Fred's Appliance, a Spokane-area retailer, for 14 years. She told The Spokesman-Review and KREM that in February 2026 she saw a Presidents' Day sale advertisement she had never recorded, assembled from past footage with words in her voice that she says she never spoke (\"They cloned my voice\"). Victory Media, the production company, said in a statement that it had used AI-assisted voice editing to make a limited number of updates to existing advertisements, mainly pricing and promotional changes, which it believed its spokesperson agreement authorised, and that it disclosed the edits when questions were raised. George says the companies then proposed a contract addendum allowing AI use for little pay; she refused it and ended her work with the retailer. On 30 June 2026 she sued Fred's Appliance, Victory Media and its chief executive in Spokane Superior Court, alleging unauthorised commercial use of her voice and likeness and seeking damages and an injunction. Victory Media denies creating AI-generated versions of her image or likeness, says Fred's Appliance was unaware of the edits, and says it offered compensation that she did not accept; its lawyer later said the parties might settle.","incidentDate":"2026-02-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-07-01","aiSystem":"Unnamed AI-assisted voice editing used by the production company Victory Media to change words in existing Fred's Appliance advertisements voiced by the spokeswoman","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"George says advertisements carried words in her voice that she never spoke and was never asked about, that the AI use diminishes her value as a spokeswoman because she cannot control what words come out of her mouth, and that she ended her 14-year work with the retailer after refusing an AI addendum. These are her own and her lawsuit's allegations; the companies say the edits were authorised by contract.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: Amber George, whose voice was edited in the advertisements and who brought the suit. Viewers of the advertisements are an audience and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-WA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jul/01/longtime-spokeswoman-sues-freds-appliance-over-use/","primarySourceLabel":"The Spokesman-Review, 1 July 2026: Longtime spokeswoman sues Fred's Appliance over use of AI likeness","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:13:14.78748+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:13:14.78748+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["voice-cloning","ai-voice-editing","advertising","spokesperson","consent","likeness","lawsuit","spokane","depicted-or-impersonated","institutional-use"]},{"id":"2026-us-meta-26-employees-sue-alleging-ai-assisted-may-layoff-selection-penalized-protected-leave","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"OAKLAND DIVISION","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Filed 07/13/26","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on July 13, 2026, bringing claims against Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A group of 26 Meta employees has sued the company, claiming it used artificial intelligence systems to select people for layoffs, disproportionately targeting those on medical, parental or family leave.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 13 July 2026 twenty-six anonymous plaintiffs (Does 1 through 26) filed a complaint against Meta Platforms, Inc. in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland division, alleging employment discrimination in the May 2026 reduction in force.","causal_attribution":"The filing of the complaint is documented by the court record. The complaint establishes only the plaintiffs’ allegations."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"artificial-intelligence-assisted systems to score, rank, and select employees for inclusion","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"algorithmic productivity scoring drawn from keystroke, screen-content, mouse,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The parties dispute whether Meta utilized AI in deciding to terminate plaintiffs’","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"They claim that Meta used a number of internal AI-assisted systems to score and rank employees on a termination list.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used a set of internal AI-assisted systems to score, rank and select employees for the termination list: the Metamate internal large-language-model assistant, employee-trained \"second brain\" agents, keystroke and other activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance ranking and calibration.","causal_attribution":"These are the plaintiffs’ allegations, pleaded on information and belief and supported by plaintiff declarations that were not inspected (they are quoted in the complaint and the order). Meta disputes them (claim c4). The news reports and the court order restate the complaint and are one reporting chain with it."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"protected-leave-takers or accommodation-seekers for individualized human review. Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On information and belief, Meta did not neutralize any of the foregoing inputs for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"result was that employees who took protected leaves were disproportionately selected for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Plaintiffs are twenty-six current and former Meta employees, each of whom Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"selected for separation in the RIF, and each of whom","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"About half the plaintiffs had taken leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that the inputs to these systems cannot be accumulated by an employee on protected medical, family or parental leave, that Meta did not neutralise them for protected leave, and that employees who took protected leave were therefore disproportionately selected for layoff. It states that each plaintiff was selected for separation in the reduction in force and had, within the 24 months before it, taken, requested or been approved for protected leave, or requested or received a disability accommodation.","causal_attribution":"Allegation of the plaintiffs. The court found on 17 July 2026 only serious questions going to the merits and no likelihood of success on that record (claim c5). Whether any AI system affected any plaintiff’s selection is unresolved."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"selection decisions in the RIF were “made by human","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"promotion history over a defined period. There was no AI-","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"was selected based on leave status, disability, or any other protected characteristic,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"“selection decision [was] made by ‘AI.’” Id. ¶ 11.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Selection decisions were made by human business leaders","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"defined period. There was no AI-assisted “scoring” or “ranking” related to employee","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"guidance does not permit AI adoption and usage metrics to be used as negative factors in","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"performance reviews in 2025 or as selection criteria in the RIF.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Meta denies the allegations. A Meta spokesperson said workforce management and organisational decisions were made by people, not AI. In declarations filed by a Meta human-resources director, Meta states that selection decisions were made by human business leaders using documented neutral criteria, that no AI-assisted scoring or ranking of employee performance was used, that no plaintiff was selected on the basis of leave status or disability, and that no selection decision was made by AI.","causal_attribution":"Meta’s statements and declarations about its own process. They are a party account and had been tested only through briefing and court hearings (claims c5 and c7), not in discovery."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"described below, the TRO is DENIED.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The parties dispute whether Meta utilized AI in deciding to terminate plaintiffs’","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, but rather a “serious question[]”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Loss of health care, employment, protected leave, and unvested restricted stock units (“RSUs”) are","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Loss of immigration status is different. Four of the plaintiffs have employment-based,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"they were not in the rooms where it happened.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 17 July 2026 the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. The order records that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in deciding to terminate the plaintiffs, finds serious questions going to the merits but no shown likelihood of success on that record, finds that loss of health care, employment, protected leave and unvested equity can be remedied in arbitration, and treats the possible loss of immigration status for four plaintiffs with Meta-sponsored visas as a potentially irreparable harm that needed more information.","causal_attribution":"A court order establishes what the court ruled and recorded. It does not establish that AI was or was not used in the selection."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On May 20, 2026, Meta began notifying the selected employees by email, beginning with","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"finalized on or about July 22, 2026 (and on or about August 20, 2026 for New York","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"laid off on May 20, 2026.” Complaint (“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1] ¶ 45 (the “mass reduction in force”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Though they have been notified of their layoffs, all 26 remain employed by Meta, with separations set to begin July 22.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"Meta in May notified nearly 8,000 employees, or about 10% of its global workforce, that they were losing their jobs","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"Laid-off workers remain on the payroll but lost access to Meta systems on May 20","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Meta began notifying employees selected in the reduction in force on 20 May 2026 (about 8,000 employees, roughly 10 percent of its workforce). The complaint says the plaintiffs were notified of their selection from that date, and that separations were scheduled for about 22 July 2026 (later for some plaintiffs). Meta said in court filings that laid-off workers stayed on the payroll but lost access to Meta systems on 20 May.","causal_attribution":"The notification date and the scheduled separation dates come from the complaint and Meta court filings as relayed by Reuters. The sources inspected do not report whether each separation took place on its scheduled date, although Courthouse News called the plaintiffs former employees on 24 August 2026."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction conducted via videoconference. The Court","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"summarizes tentative. Argument of counsel heard. Motion taken under submission; written order","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"I have a record I have to deal with and the record at the moment does not persuade me of the merits","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"categorical denial of any impact of AI in the termination process","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"whether what plaintiffs think happened, happened","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"}],"assertion":"The court held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion on 24 August 2026, heard argument and took the motion under submission with a written order to follow. Courthouse News reports that the judge said the record at that time did not persuade the judge of the merits, that the plaintiffs’ evidence raised some potential questions about Meta’s categorical denial of any impact of AI in the termination process, and that the case turns on whether what plaintiffs think happened, happened.","causal_attribution":"The minute entry documents that the hearing occurred and the motion was taken under submission. The judge’s remarks are reported by one news outlet and the transcript was not inspected. No written ruling on the preliminary injunction was found as of 29 September 2026."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"and only Plaintiff Doe 20, hereby voluntarily dismisses","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"},{"locator":"remain parties and continue to prosecute this action","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"},{"locator":"Doe 20 was voluntarily dismissed from this action on August 3, 2026 pursuant to Federal","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"is made on behalf of Doe 20, and no relief is sought on Doe 20’s behalf.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"One plaintiff (Doe 20) voluntarily dismissed all of that plaintiff’s claims without prejudice on 3 August 2026 (Dkt. 33), and the notice states that Does 1 through 19 and 21 through 26 remain parties. No reason is given in the notice.","causal_attribution":"A filing by the plaintiffs’ counsel records the dismissal. It does not say whether that plaintiff was selected in the reduction in force or why the dismissal was made."},{"id":"c9","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"They recognize that their claims must be arbitrated, and they have initiated arbitration proceedings","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"with the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Here, they seek a temporary restraining order:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"while they pursue their claims in private arbitration","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"from this Court only the status-quo-preserving provisional relief that Meta’s own","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"G. Reserve to the arbitral forum all relief on the merits, including but not limited to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The 17 July 2026 order records that the plaintiffs recognize their claims must be arbitrated and that they have initiated arbitration proceedings with the American Arbitration Association. The complaint says the plaintiffs seek from the court only status-quo-preserving provisional relief pending an independent audit of the selection process and arbitration of the merits, and it reserves merits relief such as reinstatement, back pay and damages to the arbitral forum.","causal_attribution":"The order records the plaintiffs’ own statement about their arbitration filings. The arbitration itself is confidential and its progress is unknown."}],"effects":[{"label":"Employees on or after protected leave allegedly disproportionately selected for layoff by an AI-assisted process that did not account for leave (disputed by Meta)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Plaintiffs notified of selection for termination on 20 May 2026, with separations scheduled from 22 July 2026 and possible loss of health coverage, unvested equity and (for four plaintiffs) work-visa status","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.25.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.42.1_1.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-court-declarations"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.46.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.49.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/26-meta-workers-sue-ai-aided-layoffs-medical-family-leave/","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-complaint"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jul/17/us-judge-wont-block-meta-from-laying-off-workers-w/","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"reuters-tro-coverage"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/meta-workers-claiming-ai-fired-them-unlikely-to-see-relief/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"courthouse-news-hearing"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.31.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-court-declarations"},{"id":"s10","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.33.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","health"],"unknowns":["Whether any AI system scored, ranked or selected any plaintiff is unresolved. The complaint pleads it on information and belief. Meta denies it in declarations. No discovery had occurred in the sources inspected, and the judge said on 17 July 2026 that plaintiffs were not in the rooms where the selections happened.","The sources inspected do not show how many people beyond the plaintiffs were selected because of leave, or how many of the roughly 8,000 laid-off employees were scored by any AI-assisted system. Only the plaintiffs are counted as reported harmed.","The order on the preliminary injunction motion (argued 24 August 2026, taken under submission) had not been found by 29 September 2026. The hearing remarks were read only through one news report and the transcript was not inspected.","Whether each plaintiff’s separation took place on its scheduled date (22 July 2026 for most, later for some) is not stated in the sources inspected. Reuters and CBS/AP describe the plaintiffs as still employed in July, and Courthouse News called them former employees on 24 August 2026.","One plaintiff (Doe 20) was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026 and no reason is stated. The affected count therefore uses 25.","The complaint and declarations contain individual medical, pregnancy and immigration details. They are anonymised in the public copies and are deliberately not described here.","Reuters and WSJ pages for the initial filing could not be read (HTTP 401). Reuters coverage of the 17 July ruling was read through a Spokesman-Review copy. The Law.com article was behind a subscription wall and was not cited.","The complaint alleges that data captured by a separate Meta employee-monitoring program (the Model Capability Initiative) supplied inputs to the selection process, and Meta denies that AI was used in the selection. That program’s own privacy and security consequences are a different event, recorded as 2026-meta-mci-us-employee-keystroke-and-screen-capture-for-ai-training-then-internal-data-exposure, and are not part of this record."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint states that the plaintiffs worked in California, Illinois, Washington, New York, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania and Florida and the suit is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Meta also notified employees in other countries in the same reduction in force, but no plaintiff outside the US is described.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The complaint, the court order denying the temporary restraining order, two Meta declarations, the plaintiffs’ notice of dismissal of one plaintiff and the hearing minute entry were read from the court record (CourtListener copies), with CBS/AP, Reuters and Courthouse News reports. Every AI-related statement is attributed. The plaintiffs are anonymous in the record and are not described individually. Meta denies that AI made or informed any selection decision and the court has not resolved the dispute.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used internal AI-assisted systems (Metamate, second-brain agents, activity-monitoring scoring, AI-token-usage dashboards, algorithmic ranking and calibration) to score, rank and select employees for the 20 May 2026 termination list. Meta’s declarations say selection decisions were made by human business leaders and that there was no AI-assisted scoring or ranking related to employee performance, and the court described the declarations as saying Meta did not use AI in any way with respect to the RIF. The court recorded that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in deciding to terminate the plaintiffs and found on 17 July 2026 that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the current record. On 24 August 2026 the judge said the plaintiffs’ evidence raised some potential questions about Meta’s categorical denial. No discovery had tested Meta’s account in the sources inspected.","status":"disputed"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: 26 Meta employees sue alleging an AI-assisted May 2026 layoff selection penalized workers on protected leave, Meta says people made the decisions","summary":"On 20 May 2026 Meta began notifying about 8,000 employees (roughly 10 percent of its workforce) that they had been selected for layoff. On 13 July 2026 twenty-six anonymous employees who had taken or requested medical, pregnancy, parental or family leave, or a disability accommodation, sued Meta in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used internal AI-assisted systems (including the Metamate assistant, keystroke and activity monitoring, AI-token-usage dashboards and algorithmic performance ranking) to score, rank and select employees, and that these inputs could not accumulate during protected leave, so plaintiffs on leave were disproportionately selected. Meta says workforce decisions were made by people, not AI, and that no selection decision was made by AI. On 17 July 2026 the court denied a temporary restraining order, recording that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in the terminations and finding serious questions on the merits but no shown likelihood of success. One plaintiff was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026. The preliminary injunction motion was argued on 24 August 2026 and taken under submission. The plaintiffs are pursuing their merits claims in arbitration and the allegations are unproven.","incidentDate":"2026-05-20","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-07-14","aiSystem":"Meta internal AI-assisted systems alleged in the complaint: the Metamate internal LLM assistant, employee-trained \"second brain\" agents, keystroke and activity-monitoring productivity scoring, AI-token-usage dashboards and AI-assisted performance calibration (Meta denies AI was used in selecting employees for the layoff)","aiProduct":"Meta internal AI systems (reported)","aiCompany":"Meta Platforms, Inc.","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"disputed","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The complaint alleges that 26 employees were selected for termination in Meta’s May 2026 reduction in force through an AI-assisted process that penalised protected leave, with separations scheduled from 22 July 2026 and asserted losses of employer-subsidised health coverage, unvested equity and, for four plaintiffs, work-visa status. Meta denies that AI was used in the selections. The court found the alleged harms other than immigration status remediable in arbitration and has not decided the merits.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":25,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The complaint states that each of 26 plaintiffs was selected for separation in the May 2026 reduction in force. One plaintiff was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026 without a stated reason, so 25 active plaintiffs are counted as a documented minimum. The roughly 8,000 other employees notified in the reduction in force are not counted because no source ties their selection to the alleged AI process.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Complaint, Does 1 through 26 v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (N.D. Cal., filed 13 Jul 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:16:06.345461+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:57.733761+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]},{"id":"2025-chiranjeevi-ai-deepfake-porn-videos-hyderabad-cybercrime-complaint","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'అక్టోబర్‌ 25న ఇచ్చిన లిఖిత పూర్వక ఫిర్యాదులో, కొందరు వెబ్‌సైట్లు తన రూపంలో కృత్రిమ మేధ (AI) సహాయంతో అసభ్య దృశ్యాలు సృష్టించి వ్యాప్తి చేస్తున్నట్లు తెలిపారు.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'ఆర్టిఫిషియల్ ఇంటెలిజెన్స్ (ఏఐ) టెక్నాలజీని ఉపయోగించి, తన ముఖాన్ని మార్ఫింగ్ చేసి అశ్లీల (పోర్న్) వీడియోలను సృష్టిస్తున్నారని ఆయన తన ఫిర్యాదులో పేర్కొన్నారు.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 25 October 2025 the actor and former Union minister Chiranjeevi gave Hyderabad cybercrime police a written complaint that pornographic websites were publishing obscene videos made with AI that morphed his face and likeness.","causal_attribution":"The complainant's account; the videos' creators were not identified in the read sources."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Based on the complaint, the police have registered a case under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act, Sections 79, 294, 296 and 336(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Sections 2(c), 3 and 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'చిరంజీవి ఫిర్యాదు మేరకు పోలీసులు ఐటీ చట్టంలోని సెక్షన్లు 67, 67ఏ, భారతీయ న్యాయ సంహిత (BNS)లోని సెక్షన్లు 79, 294, 296, 336(4)తో పాటు పలు ఇతర చట్టాల కింద కేసు నమోదు చేశారు.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Police registered a case under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act, Sections 79, 294, 296 and 336(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act.","causal_attribution":"Police registration of the case as reported; no arrest is reported in the read sources."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In his complaint, Chiranjeevi condemned the videos as “malicious” and said they have caused “severe and irreparable harm” to his reputation. “These fabricated clips distort public perception, undermine decades of goodwill, and inflict personal and emotional distress on me and my family,” he stated.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'వీడియోల కొనసాగుతున్న ప్రచారం తన మానసిక ఆరోగ్యానికీ, గౌరవానికీ నష్టం కలిగిస్తోందని పేర్కొన్నారు.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In his complaint he said the videos caused severe and irreparable harm to his reputation and personal and emotional distress to him and his family.","causal_attribution":"His own statement of the effects in the complaint."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'ఇలాంటి కంటెంట్‌ ప్రచారం నిరోధించేందుకు ఇప్పటికే హైదరాబాద్‌ సిటీ సివిల్‌ కోర్టు ప్రధాన న్యాయమూర్తి నుంచి తాత్కాలిక నిషేధాజ్ఞ కూడా పొందినట్లు తెలిపారు.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'వాటిని తొలగించాలని సిటీ సివిల్కోర్టును సెప్టెంబరులో ఆశ్రయించారు. దీంతో కోర్టు అదే నెల 26న ఆయా వెబ్సైట్లలో కంటెంట్తొలగించాలని ఆదేశాలు జారీ చేసింది.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Before the police complaint he had obtained an interim injunction from the Hyderabad City Civil Court; V6 Velugu reports that he approached that court in September 2025 over deepfake obscene videos on porn sites and that on 26 September it ordered the content removed from those websites.","causal_attribution":"Court order as reported; the order itself was not inspected. Locator for s5 is quoted with zero-width characters removed."}],"effects":[{"label":"AI-made obscene videos using his likeness published on pornographic sites; he reported reputational harm and emotional distress to himself and his family","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.telugupost.com/top-stories/chiranjeevi-deepfake-cybercrime-complaint-hyderabad-1595809","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"te","translation_note":"Read live in Telugu on 2026-09-29 (published 27 October 2025); summarises the written complaint. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"chiranjeevi-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.ap7am.com/tn/846021/chiranjeevi-lodges-police-complaint-over-deepfake-pornographic-content","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"te","translation_note":"Read live in Telugu on 2026-09-29 (published 27 October 2025); quotes the complaint and the sections registered. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"chiranjeevi-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://gulfnews.com/entertainment/chiranjeevi-files-complaint-over-ai-deepfake-vulgar-videos-on-adult-sites-says-it-distressed-his-family-1.500324422","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-09-29 (published 28 October 2025); quotes the complaint as reported by ANI.","independence_group":"chiranjeevi-complaint"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.newsx.com/offbeat/chiranjeevi-deepfake-mms-case-actor-approaches-police-over-ai-generated-obscene-videos-276933/","kind":"news_relay","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-09-29 (published 28 September 2026). A recap of the October 2025 complaints that gives no event dates; its only unique content is the Hyderabad police commissioner's statement. Not used for dates.","independence_group":"chiranjeevi-complaint"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.v6velugu.com/megastar-chiranjeevi-complaint-on-social-media-trolls-against-hyderbad-cyber-crimes-police-station","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"te","translation_note":"Read live in Telugu on 2026-09-29 (29 October 2025); reports a second complaint about abusive posts and recaps the civil suit and the deepfake complaint. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"chiranjeevi-complaint"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Who made and uploaded the videos, and whether anyone has been arrested.","When the videos first appeared online; V6 Velugu reports a civil suit over them in September 2025, so they circulated by then.","Whether the videos were removed from the websites.","The exact complaint date: Telugupost says the written complaint was given on 25 October 2025; V6 Velugu dates it to 27 October 2025."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint was filed with Hyderabad cybercrime police in Telangana, India (Telugupost; Gulf News). Before the complaint he had obtained an interim injunction from the Hyderabad City Civil Court, which Telugupost says was aimed at stopping the spread of such content and which V6 Velugu says ordered the content removed from the websites on 26 September 2025. Where the websites are hosted is not stated.","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":["IN"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a core case (AI-generated sexual videos depicting a named public figure without consent, with a registered police case). The account rests on his complaint as reported by Telugu and English outlets. No imagery is described beyond the complaint's terms. The lead arrived through a September 2026 recap; the event dates come from October 2025 reporting.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint, as reported, says the videos were made with AI technology that morphed his face into obscene content (Telugupost; ap7am; Gulf News via ANI). No forensic finding is reported and the tool is not named.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Hyderabad, India: actor Chiranjeevi files a cybercrime complaint over AI-generated obscene videos using his face on pornographic websites; police register a case under the IT Act and BNS","summary":"On 25 October 2025 the Telugu actor and former Union minister Konidela Chiranjeevi gave Hyderabad cybercrime police a written complaint that several pornographic websites were publishing obscene videos made with AI that morphed his face and likeness, and asked for a criminal and technical investigation and removal of the content, including from mirror sites. Police registered a case under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act, several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act. In the complaint he said the videos caused severe and irreparable harm to his reputation and personal and emotional distress to him and his family. He had already obtained an ad-interim injunction from the Hyderabad City Civil Court protecting his name, image and likeness (Gulf News); V6 Velugu reports that he had gone to that court in September 2025 over the same kind of deepfake videos and that on 26 September it ordered their removal. A September 2026 NewsX recap reports that Hyderabad Police Commissioner V C Sajjanar said the cybercrime team was working to trace those responsible.","incidentDate":"2025-10-25","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-10-27","aiSystem":"Unnamed AI tools used to morph his face into obscene videos (per his complaint)","aiProduct":"Unidentified video tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"AI-generated obscene videos using his likeness were published on pornographic websites; he reported severe harm to his reputation and emotional distress to himself and his family (his complaint via Telugupost, ap7am and Gulf News/ANI).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One depicted person, Chiranjeevi (his complaint). His family's reported distress is his statement and is not counted separately. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN-TG","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.telugupost.com/top-stories/chiranjeevi-deepfake-cybercrime-complaint-hyderabad-1595809","primarySourceLabel":"Telugupost, 27 October 2025: డీప్‌ఫేక్‌ అసభ్య వీడియోలపై చిరంజీవి సైబర్‌ క్రైమ్ కు ఫిర్యాదు","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T03:22:09.016588+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:59.537311+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["deepfakes","deepfake-pornography","non-consensual-intimate-imagery","tollywood","hyderabad","telangana","india","police-complaint","depicted-or-impersonated"]}]}