{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-11T08:03:06.712Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"jersey","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":0,"minors":1,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"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":"2026-new-jersey-remote-worker-dismissed-after-seeking-exemption-from-ai-webcam-monitoring","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'her former employer, Sutherland Healthcare Solutions in Clifton, let her go in early September for being unwilling to submit to the AI software monitoring, known as Sentinel AI'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The employee alleges that Sutherland Healthcare Solutions, based in Clifton, New Jersey, ended her employment in early September 2026 for being unwilling to submit to AI monitoring software known as Sentinel AI.","causal_attribution":"The employee's allegation in her lawsuit, as reported. The employer did not respond."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'it would start using AI to take still images of her via the webcam on her work laptop'; 'would use AI and facial recognition software to make sure'; 'taking 160 images during an eight-hour work shift, or one image every three minutes, the suit says'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the suit, the employer said it would use AI to take still images of the employee through her work laptop's webcam, using facial recognition to confirm she was the person at the desk, at 160 images in an eight-hour shift.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's description of the employer's planned monitoring, as reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'notified her employer in writing that she was worried about the AI seeing the inside of her home, and whether the data would be securely stored, the complaint says'; 'the proposed monitoring had significantly increased\" her anxiety and stress'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The employee raised concerns in writing about the AI seeing inside her home and about whether the data would be securely stored, and told the employer the proposed monitoring had significantly increased her anxiety and stress.","causal_attribution":"The employee's account in the complaint, as reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'asked for an accommodation to be exempt from the monitoring while working from home, the lawsuit says, but was denied'; 'On Aug. 13, 2026,'; 'was given a 24-hour ultimatum to submit to the AI surveillance or resign'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Her request for an accommodation exempting her from the monitoring while working from home was denied, and on 13 August 2026 she was given a 24-hour ultimatum to submit to the AI surveillance or resign.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's account, as reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Management offered to let her avoid the software if she commuted to the office'; 'it would require six hours of travel time'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Management offered to let her avoid the software by commuting to the office, which she rejected because it would require six hours of travel.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's account, as reported."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'employment was terminated on Sept. 8, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Her employment was terminated on 8 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's account, as reported. The employer has not given its reasons publicly."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'lawsuit filed on Sept. 23 in state Superior Court in Atlantic City'; 'violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws and retaliated against her for requesting “reasonable accommodations”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A lawsuit filed on 23 September 2026 in New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic City alleges that the employer violated the state's anti-discrimination laws and retaliated against her for requesting reasonable accommodations.","causal_attribution":"The outlet's report of the filing. The filing was not inspected."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sutherland did not respond to multiple emails seeking comment for this story'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Sutherland did not respond to the outlet's requests for comment.","causal_attribution":"The outlet's statement."}],"effects":[{"label":"employment terminated after refusing AI facial-recognition webcam monitoring and being denied an accommodation (alleged)","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"},{"label":"increased anxiety and stress attributed to the monitoring requirement (employee's account)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/business/2026/10/05/clifton-nj-bill-ai-monitor-employees-lawsuit/92056487007/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full. The www host refused the fetcher, so the identical article was read on the eu.northjersey.com mirror of the same URL path. The complaint itself was not inspected.","independence_group":"northjersey-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy","accessibility"],"unknowns":["Whether the monitoring software was ever run on this employee and what it recorded.","The employer's account of the monitoring policy and of the reasons for the dismissal.","The vendor of the Sentinel AI software and how its facial-recognition check works.","The court's response to the lawsuit.","The dates on which the employer announced the monitoring and on which the accommodation request was made and denied."],"geography":{"basis":"The employer is in Clifton, New Jersey, and the report says the employee worked remotely for it from a home in New Jersey, so the dismissal and the home-working arrangement at issue were in the US. The lawsuit was filed in New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic City.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete account of a person's dismissal after objecting to an employer's AI facial-recognition monitoring, reported by a regional newspaper from a filed lawsuit and the employee's attorneys. The account is attributed as allegation throughout, and the employee is not named in this record.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the employer's response to the employee's objection to AI monitoring: according to the complaint as reported, the employer required webcam monitoring that would use AI and facial recognition to confirm her identity at the desk, denied her accommodation request and terminated her employment after she refused it. The report does not say the software ever captured or assessed images of this employee, so no output of the AI system about her is established and the relation is recorded as unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Lawsuit says a New Jersey employer dismissed a remote worker who sought exemption from AI facial-recognition webcam monitoring","summary":"NorthJersey.com reported on 5 October 2026 that a former remote employee of Sutherland Healthcare Solutions, based in Clifton, New Jersey, sued the company in New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic City on 23 September 2026. According to the complaint as reported, the employer told the employee it would start monitoring her through her work laptop's webcam with software called Sentinel AI, which would use AI and facial recognition to confirm that she was the person at the desk, taking 160 still images in an eight-hour shift. The employee raised concerns in writing about the AI seeing inside her home and about whether the data would be securely stored, said the monitoring had increased her anxiety and stress and worsened a medical condition, and asked for a full or partial exemption as a reasonable accommodation. The suit says the request was denied, she was given a 24-hour ultimatum on 13 August 2026 to submit to the monitoring or resign, an offer to avoid the software by commuting to the office was rejected because it would require six hours of travel time, and her employment was terminated on 8 September 2026. The suit alleges that the employer violated New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws and retaliated against her for requesting reasonable accommodations. Sutherland did not respond to the outlet's requests for comment, and the allegations have not been tested in court.","incidentDate":"2026-08-13","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-08","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-05","aiSystem":"Workplace webcam-monitoring software reported as Sentinel AI in NorthJersey.com's account of the employee's lawsuit, which the complaint, as reported, says would use AI and facial recognition to take still images of a remote worker and confirm that she was the person at the desk","aiProduct":"Sentinel AI (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The employee lost a long-held job after refusing an employer's AI facial-recognition webcam monitoring and being denied an accommodation, and says the monitoring requirement increased anxiety and stress and worsened a medical condition (allegations in a lawsuit reported by NorthJersey.com; the employer did not comment).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the employee whose employment was terminated. Counted under other people harmed because the AI system was the employer's monitoring tool, not one the employee chose to use.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-NJ","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/business/2026/10/05/clifton-nj-bill-ai-monitor-employees-lawsuit/92056487007/","primarySourceLabel":"NorthJersey.com (The Record), 5 October 2026: \"NJ employer wanted to use AI to monitor at-home employee, suit says\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-06T03:13:23.649886+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T03:13:23.649886+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["workplace-monitoring","facial-recognition","dismissal","workplace-accommodation","employment-lawsuit","new-jersey","consequential-response"]},{"id":"2025-doe-v-clothoff-nj","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Complaint caption and preliminary statement; ¶¶260-274, 338-340 (Telegram as nominal defendant).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Docket D.E. 1 (filed 2025-10-16; assigned judges).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Jane Doe, a minor suing through her parents, filed the complaint on 16 October 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (2:25-cv-16671-ES-JBC, Judge Esther Salas, Magistrate Judge James B. Clark) against AI/Robotics Venture Strategy 3 Ltd. d/b/a ClothOff (BVI), Alaiksandr Babichau and Dasha Babicheva (of Minsk), and Telegram entities as nominal defendants.","causal_attribution":"Established directly by the filing and the docket."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Complaint ¶¶33-40 (the discovery date, the Snapchat-group circulation, the age-14 source photo, the classmate uploader).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"TechCrunch's complaint-based account, including that local authorities declined prosecution.","relation":"context","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 20 October 2023 Doe, then 15, learned that ClothOff-generated CSAM of her and 'several other girls in her class' was circulating in a Snapchat group; the source was an ordinary photo of her at age 14 from Instagram, uploaded by a minor classmate; local authorities declined to prosecute.","causal_attribution":"Established as the complaint's contents; they remain the plaintiff's allegations. The prosecution decline is TechCrunch's reading of the complaint, attributed."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Complaint ¶¶1-6, 54-55 (visitors, image rate, watermark, three clicks), ¶¶220-255 (affiliated services), ¶¶695-697 (bots, API).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint describes ClothOff as a purpose-built 'undress' service producing hyper-realistic output 'indistinguishable from real photographs' without a watermark in three clicks, with at least 27 million visitors and about 200,000 images per day, at least ten affiliated services, Telegram bots and an API.","causal_attribution":"Established as the complaint's contents. These are the plaintiff's allegations, not independently audited figures; the historical record's '3 million users' and '15+ affiliated services' were corrected to the complaint's figures."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Guardian passages naming the operators, the fake CEO, Texture Oasis and GGSel/GG Technology; the Almendralejo and Westfield links; '>4m monthly visits'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"Bellingcat's network map and payment-laundering account (G2A/Skinsback/Steam/PayPal/Stripe/Patreon), 23 Feb 2024.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Reporting before the suit identified the operators: the Guardian's Black Box investigation named Babichau and Babicheva (Minsk), a fake AI 'CEO', the Texture Oasis payment front and GGSel/GG Technology links, and tied ClothOff to the Almendralejo (Spain) and Westfield NJ school incidents; Bellingcat's independent investigation mapped the same network and its payment laundering six days earlier.","causal_attribution":"Two independent investigations six days apart; they overlap on GG Technology/Bondarenko but were conducted separately. The complaint itself relies on the Guardian's reporting (per Yale)."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Docket entries D.E. 12-20 (24 Jun notice; 29 Jun vacatur; 8 Jul order; 9 Jul motion and exhibits; 3 Aug setting).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The 2026 docket shows continuing service efforts: a Rule 4(m) call for dismissal on 24 June 2026 (service not effected; the pseudonym motion administratively terminated), vacated by Judge Salas on 29 June after the plaintiff showed ongoing foreign-service efforts; an order allowing service by email on 8 July; and a motion for service by publication or email on 9 July, set for decision on 3 August 2026.","causal_attribution":"Established by the docket through the RECAP mirror's end (15 July 2026); nothing later is visible in this review."},{"id":"c6","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"Yale's account of the removal letters and platform responses (X, Discord, Google, YouTube).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"TechCrunch: the service was 'still available... through a Telegram bot' (12 Jan 2026).","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"X, Discord, Google and YouTube removed ClothOff following the clinics' summer 2025 letters (Yale); the historical claim that Telegram removed the ClothOff bot in October 2025 is contradicted by TechCrunch, which found the service still available through a Telegram bot on 12 January 2026.","causal_attribution":"The platform removals are a party account (Yale); the Telegram-bot status is contradicted by later reporting and recorded as disputed rather than resolved either way."}],"effects":[{"label":"AI-generated CSAM of a minor circulated in her school community; federal suit against the platform","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.585002/gov.uscourts.njd.585002.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Complaint PDF (45 pages) fetched and read via pdftotext on 2026-09-15. The filing establishes its own contents; its allegations remain allegations.","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71665449/doe-v-airobotics-venture-strategy-3-ltd/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket reviewed on 2026-09-15 through D.E. 20 (mirror ends 15 July 2026).","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/clinics-file-suit-against-website-generates-nonconsensual-nude-images","kind":"party_announcement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-15. Party source (the clinics bringing the suit); used for the clinics' role and the X/Discord/Google/YouTube removal letters.","independence_group":"yale"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/feb/29/clothoff-deepfake-ai-pornography-app-names-linked-revealed","kind":"news_investigation","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full on 2026-09-15 (29 Feb 2024, Black Box).","independence_group":"guardian"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://bellingcat.com/news/2024/02/23/behind-a-secretive-global-network-of-non-consensual-deepfake-pornography/","kind":"news_investigation","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full on 2026-09-15 (23 Feb 2024).","independence_group":"bellingcat"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/12/a-new-jersey-lawsuit-shows-how-hard-it-is-to-fight-deepfake-porn/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full on 2026-09-15 (12 Jan 2026); own interview with co-lead counsel.","independence_group":"techcrunch"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/10/teen-haunted-by-fake-nudes-sues-to-kill-nudify-app-block-telegram-bots/","kind":"news_relaying_wsj","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-15 (17 Oct 2025). Relays the WSJ report; adds Telegram's ToS statement and the separate suit against the boy.","independence_group":"wsj"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/teen-sues-maker-of-fake-nude-software-b88f316f","kind":"news_report","access":"unavailable","language":null,"translation_note":"HTTP 401 paywall on 2026-09-15; not read; language not established.","independence_group":"wsj"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://www.nj.com/news/2026/01/this-nj-girl-was-a-victim-of-deepfake-porn-shes-suing-the-app-that-generated-it.html","kind":"news_report","access":"unavailable","language":null,"translation_note":"HTTP 403 on 2026-09-15; not read; language not established.","independence_group":"nj-com"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["education","justice"],"unknowns":["The service-by-publication/email motion's outcome after 3 August 2026 is not visible in the RECAP mirror (ends 15 July 2026); whether default judgment or dismissal followed is unknown.","Whether Doe's school is the Westfield High School of the earlier New Jersey incident is unverified: the complaint names only 'a high school in Union County', and the historical record's 'separate victim from Francesca Mani' is not established by any inspected document. The school is deliberately not inferred or named.","The current availability of the generated images is unknown.","The platforms' and registries' responses to the requested injunctions are not yet reported.","The complaint's platform figures (visitors, image rate) are the plaintiff's allegations and are not independently audited."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: a high school in Union County, New Jersey (complaint; the school is not named and is not inferred). Affected person: the New Jersey minor. Court: U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The defendants' BVI/Belarus connections are recorded without becoming event or court countries.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Restored under the 2026-09-15 charter as a harmful-artifact case (depicted_or_impersonated) with the federal complaint as the primary record. The plaintiff is a minor protected by court-ordered pseudonymity; no school, classmate or image description beyond the minimum case facts is reproduced. The complaint's contents are recorded as allegations; operator identity rests on two independent investigations.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges the images of Doe were generated by ClothOff from her photo; the platform's purpose-built undress function is documented by the complaint and the Guardian/Bellingcat investigations. The allegations remain allegations against the unserved defendants; the platform's existence, function and operator identity are independently investigated.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Doe v. ClothOff (D.N.J.): a New Jersey minor sues the AI 'undressing' platform over generated CSAM","summary":"On 16 October 2025, Jane Doe, a New Jersey minor suing through her parents, filed a federal complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (2:25-cv-16671-ES-JBC) against the operators of ClothOff, an AI 'undressing' service, after ClothOff-generated sexual images of her — created from an ordinary photo of her at 14 — circulated in a Snapchat group when she was 15. The complaint, brought by Yale Law School clinics, alleges the platform was purpose-built to produce hyper-realistic non-consensual intimate imagery and names AI/Robotics Venture Strategy 3 Ltd. (British Virgin Islands), Alaiksandr Babichau and Dasha Babicheva (Minsk), and Telegram as nominal defendant. As of mid-July 2026 the docket shows a continuing effort to serve the foreign defendants by email or publication.","incidentDate":"2023-10-20","incidentEndDate":"2025-10-16","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2025-10-16","aiSystem":"ClothOff (AI undressing service)","aiProduct":"ClothOff","aiCompany":"AI/Robotics Venture Strategy 3 Ltd. d/b/a ClothOff (BVI); operators identified in reporting as based in Minsk, Belarus","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":["minor_exploitation","third_party_harm_facilitation"],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"ClothOff-generated CSAM of a 15-year-old circulated in her school's Snapchat group from an ordinary childhood photo — persistent image-based abuse of a minor that local authorities declined to prosecute, leaving the federal suit as the remedy path.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One counted depicted person: Jane Doe (complaint). The complaint's 'several other girls in her class' are depicted but unnamed and unquantified, so the total is counted-plus-unquantified (partial). Platform visitor and image-rate figures (27 million visitors, ~200,000 images/day) are not people and are never counted.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"US-NJ","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.585002/gov.uscourts.njd.585002.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Federal complaint, D.N.J. 2:25-cv-16671-ES-JBC (45 pages, read via pdftotext)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-05-10T10:35:08.921808+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:01.196687+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["lawsuit","federal","minor","new-jersey","clothoff","deepfake","csam","ncii","yale-law","ongoing"]}]}