{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-24T07:32:37.662Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"italy","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"unknown","evidence":"","year":"2023","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":1,"minors":1,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":2,"relationPending":1,"relationUnknown":1},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2023-rome-labour-court-upholds-graphic-designers-dismissal-in-reorganisation-where-remaining-design-work-moved-partly-to-ai-tools","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'La lavoratrice era stata assunta nel marzo 2022'; 'Nel maggio 2023 la società le intimava licenziamento per giustificato motivo oggettivo, motivandolo con una riorganizzazione interna e con la soppressione della posizione lavorativa'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'una graphic designer, assunta nel 2022 da una società di cybersecurity, rimaneva vittima, un anno dopo, di una riorganizzazione interna dell’azienda'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A cybersecurity company dismissed a graphic designer it had hired in March 2022 in May 2023, citing an internal reorganisation and the suppression of her post to contain costs.","causal_attribution":"The company's stated grounds as recorded in the judgment and relayed by legal press; one origin (the judgment)."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Particolarmente rilevante, poi, è la circostanza relativa all’impiego di strumenti di intelligenza artificiale da parte del responsabile marketing, che consentivano di realizzare contenuti grafici con standard qualitativi adeguati, riducendo tempi e costi'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'l’azienda specificava come le mansioni di graphic design fossero state prima assorbite da altre figure e poi svolte, per le attività residue, anche tramite supporto di strumenti di intelligenza artificiale'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"According to the judgment as reported, the design tasks were first absorbed by other staff and the residual work was then done partly with AI tools, which the marketing manager used to produce graphics of adequate quality at lower cost and in less time.","causal_attribution":"The company's account and the evidence summarised from the judgment by legal press; one origin. The worker disputed that her tasks were eliminated."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'La dipendente impugnava il recesso, sostenendo che la riorganizzazione fosse meramente pretestuosa e che le sue mansioni non fossero state realmente eliminate, ma semplicemente redistribuite ad altri lavoratori'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The worker challenged the dismissal, arguing that the reorganisation was a pretext and that her tasks had been redistributed to other workers rather than eliminated.","causal_attribution":"The worker's case as summarised from the judgment by one outlet; one origin."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A tale quesito ha risposto il Tribunale di Roma – IV Sezione Lavoro, con la sentenza n. 9135 del 19 novembre 2025'; 'Il giudice capitolino ha ritenuto legittimo il licenziamento di una graphic designer'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Lo ha stabilito il Tribunale di Roma con la sentenza n. 9135 del 19 novembre 2025, che ha riconosciuto legittimo, per “giustificato motivo oggettivo”, il licenziamento di una graphic designer'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The labour section of the Tribunale di Roma, in judgment no. 9135 of 19 November 2025, held the dismissal lawful.","causal_attribution":"The court's ruling as relayed by two outlets; the judgment text was not read; one origin."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Nella motivazione della sentenza, l’Intelligenza artificiale non viene individuata come causa autonoma del licenziamento, ma come uno degli strumenti utilizzati dall’azienda per rendere più efficiente la propria struttura'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'L’intelligenza artificiale, sostiene il decidente, è utilizzata dall’azienda come “supporto”, non come causa autonoma'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The reports say the court treated AI as one of the tools the company used to make its structure more efficient and not as an autonomous cause of the dismissal.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning as relayed by a news outlet and a legal commentary; one origin (the judgment)."}],"effects":[{"label":"graphic designer dismissed in a reorganisation that included AI tools, challenge rejected","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://lentepubblica.it/personale-e-previdenza/lintelligenza-artificiale-puo-causare-un-licenziamento-per-giustificato-motivo/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"it","translation_note":"Read in Italian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-24 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. lentepubblica.it report on the judgment, 2 March 2026; HTTP 200, full text read. The judgment itself was not read.","independence_group":"tribunale-di-roma-judgment-9135-2025"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://tg24.sky.it/economia/2026/02/26/licenziamento-ai-tribunale-legittimo-perche","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"it","translation_note":"Read in Italian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-24 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Sky TG24 report, 26 February 2026, which says the decision was reported by the Corriere della Sera; HTTP 200, full text read.","independence_group":"tribunale-di-roma-judgment-9135-2025"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://giustiziainsieme.it/print/articolo_pdf?id=3953","kind":"other","access":"read","language":"it","translation_note":"Read in Italian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-24 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Giustizia Insieme commentary by a lawyer on the judgment, 27 April 2026; PDF print version read in full (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext).","independence_group":"tribunale-di-roma-judgment-9135-2025"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The text of judgment no. 9135/2025 and whether it was appealed.","Which AI tools the marketing manager used.","The name of the company and its location within Italy.","How much of the designer's former work the AI tools took over, as against other staff."],"geography":{"basis":"The case was decided by the Tribunale di Roma under Italian dismissal law, and lentepubblica says the worker was employed under the Italian commerce and services collective agreement (CCNL Commercio Terziario), placing the employment and dismissal in Italy. The worker's residence is not stated.","court_countries":["IT"],"event_countries":["IT"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a consequential-response case: a cybersecurity company dismissed a graphic designer in May 2023 in a reorganisation in which, according to the reported judgment, residual design work was done partly with AI tools, and a Rome labour court upheld the dismissal in judgment 9135/2025 while describing AI as a support and not an autonomous cause. All facts come from legal press reports of the judgment, which was not read.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-24"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the employer's dismissal of the designer in a reorganisation that, according to the judgment as reported, included moving residual graphic work partly to AI tools used by the marketing manager to produce graphics at lower cost and time; the court accepted that reorganisation and, according to the reports, described AI as a support and not an autonomous cause. No source says an AI system produced any output about the worker, so the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Rome labour court upholds a graphic designer's dismissal in a reorganisation in which her remaining design work was done partly with AI tools","summary":"A graphic designer hired in March 2022 by a cybersecurity company was dismissed in May 2023 for a justified objective reason, which the company gave as an internal reorganisation and the suppression of her post to contain costs during an economic crisis. She challenged the dismissal, arguing that the reorganisation was a pretext and that her tasks had been redistributed to other workers, not eliminated. According to legal press reports of the judgment, the company said the graphic-design tasks were first absorbed by other staff and the residual work was then done partly with the support of artificial-intelligence tools, which the marketing manager used to produce graphics of adequate quality at lower cost and in less time. The labour section of the Tribunale di Roma (judgment no. 9135 of 19 November 2025) found a real crisis and reorganisation, no possibility of redeploying her, and upheld the dismissal. The reports say the court treated AI as one of the tools the company used to make its structure more efficient, not as an autonomous cause of the dismissal; a commentary in Giustizia Insieme calls the publicity around a first dismissal caused by AI out of proportion to the ruling. The judgment itself was not read, and whether it was appealed is not reported.","incidentDate":"2023-05-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-02-26","aiSystem":"Unnamed artificial-intelligence tools that, according to the judgment as reported, the company's marketing manager used to produce graphic content after the design post was suppressed","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A graphic designer lost her job in a reorganisation in which, according to the reported judgment, remaining design work was done partly with AI tools, and a Rome labour court rejected her challenge.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The dismissed graphic designer, described in all three sources. No other dismissal is described.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IT","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://lentepubblica.it/personale-e-previdenza/lintelligenza-artificiale-puo-causare-un-licenziamento-per-giustificato-motivo/","primarySourceLabel":"lentepubblica.it, 2 March 2026: Rome labour court judgment 9135/2025 on dismissal and artificial intelligence","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-24T03:16:41.726766+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-24T03:16:41.726766+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["dismissal","workplace-ai","labour-court","italy","consequential-response"]},{"id":"2023-replika-italy-gdpr","metadataReview":{"version":1,"geography":{"basis":"Geographic fields reviewed using the cited source-body passages and, where identified, retained dossier passages. Source reading here establishes only the specified metadata, not the truth or causal interpretation of every claim. Affected-person countries refer to reported location or residence, not citizenship or a complete residence history.","evidence":[{"kind":"source_body","locator":"Italian paragraphs beginning “Il Garante della privacy ferma” and “Replika viola”: processing of Italian users’ personal data.","location":"https://www.garanteprivacy.it/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/docweb/9852506","supports":["event_countries","affected_person_countries"],"countries":["IT"]}],"court_countries":[],"event_countries":["IT"],"affected_person_countries":["IT"]},"unresolved":["No court country established in this review. Regulatory authorities and police locations are not automatically courts."],"reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","source_reviews":[{"url":"https://www.garanteprivacy.it/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/docweb/9852506","notes":"Italian body and embedded official English translation read. Country relates to affected users/data rights. The Garante is a regulator, not a court.","access":"read","language":"it"}]},"name":"Replika Italy GDPR Ban and Fine","summary":"Italy's data protection authority (Garante) blocked Replika from processing Italian user data in February 2023 after finding the chatbot engaged in sexually suggestive conversations with minors. In May 2025, Replika was fined €5 million for GDPR violations.","incidentDate":"2023-02-02","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2023-02-02","aiSystem":"Replika","aiProduct":"Replika","aiCompany":"Luka, Inc.","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":["minor_exploitation","romantic_escalation"],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Italy's data-protection authority found that Replika engaged minors in sexually suggestive participant-facing conversations without effective age assurance and blocked the service from processing Italian user data.","frameworkFacets":["P1d","P2b","P2c","P5a","P5d"],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"unquantified","affectedCountEvidence":"The regulator documents harmful sexualized interactions with minors but does not publish a reliable distinct-person count.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"IT","platformType":"companion","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.garanteprivacy.it/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/docweb/9852506","primarySourceLabel":"Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italian DPA)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-01-11T11:26:29.042792+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:49.77617+00:00","scopeVersion":"participant-v2","tags":["regulatory","gdpr","italy","replika","fine","minor_exploitation","eu"]}]}