{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-11-07T02:53:38.714Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"justice","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2023","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":7,"coverage":{"cases":7,"countries":4,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":3,"regulatory":2,"minors":2,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":7,"mixedRelations":2,"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":"2023-netherlands-driver-says-police-ai-phone-camera-flagged-him-for-holding-phone-while-scratching-head-380-euro-fine","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"De slimme camera’s van de politie zijn uitgerust met kunstmatige intelligentie.; De foto van de overtreding moet ook nog door een agent worden gecontroleerd.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Dat is een mobiele flitscamera van de politie die met kunstmatige intelligentie registreert of iemand aan het bellen is.; Bij flitsfoto's gemaakt met een MONOcam moet een agent altijd nog zelf de foto beoordelen op overtredingen.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"In de video wordt uitgelegd dat een algoritme bepaalt of iemand een mobiel apparaat vasthoudt tijdens het rijden. Vervolgens moet een politiemedewerker beoordelen of er daadwerkelijk een overtreding is begaan.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Dutch police use mobile smart cameras with artificial intelligence that judge from a photo whether a driver is holding a mobile phone, after which a police officer reviews the photo before a fine is issued.","causal_attribution":"Description of the system by two outlets and by the driver from a police video; no police statement on this case."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Volgens de officiële beschikking had ik halverwege oktober als bestuurder tijdens het rijden een mobiel elektrisch apparaat vastgehouden.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"kreeg meteen een boete van 380 euro. Plus nog 9 euro administratiekosten.; vroeg hij de foto van de overtreding op de snelweg A2 bij Weert op.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Maar de politie oordeelde dat hij zat te bellen. Kosten: 380 euro en 9 euro voor de administratie.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The driver received a fine of 380 euros plus 9 euros in administration costs for holding a mobile device while driving, for a photo taken on the A2 motorway near Weert in October 2023.","causal_attribution":"The driver's account of the fine notice, repeated by both outlets from interviews with him; the notice itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Op de foto is te zien dat ik mijn hand bij mijn gezicht heb, maar ik heb niks vast in mijn hand.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Ik heb een auto met de mogelijkheid om er handsfree te bellen. Ook ben ik linkshandig, maar ik krab daar met mijn rechterhand aan mijn hoofd.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Op de flitsfoto was te zien dat hij tijdens het rijden over de A2 bij Weert aan zijn hoofd zat.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The driver says the flash photo shows his empty hand near his face because he was scratching his head, that his car allows hands-free calling and that he is left-handed.","causal_attribution":"The driver's own account of the photo; RTL describes the photo it published."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"wordt uitgelegd hoe de Monocam, de camera die mij geflitst heeft, gebruikt wordt.; In mijn geval heeft het algoritme dus gezegd dat ik een mobiel apparaat vasthoud tijdens het rijden én de medewerker van de politie heeft dat geaccepteerd.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"is waarschijnlijk gemaakt door een MONOcam.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Deze AI-camera had zich dus vergist.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The driver says the camera was a MONOcam whose algorithm judged that he was holding a mobile device and that the reviewing police employee accepted that judgement; RTL Nieuws reported that the photo was probably taken by a MONOcam, and Omroep Brabant described the fine as the AI camera's mistake.","causal_attribution":"The driver's inference from a police video and the photo; RTL hedges the camera model; no police confirmation."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Die agent was waarschijnlijk bevooroordeeld, omdat het algoritme zei dat ik aan het bellen was.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Als je heel snel naar de foto kijkt, kun je denken: ‘Die zal wel zitten te bellen’. Er is een donkere schaduw in mijn hand te zien.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The driver said the reviewing officer was probably biased because the algorithm said he was phoning, and that on a quick look a dark shadow in his hand could suggest a phone.","causal_attribution":"The driver's own interpretation."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Uiteraard ben ik in bezwaar gegaan, maar daar heb ik nog geen uitslag van.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Ik heb bezwaar gemaakt. Ik ben in afwachting daarvan.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"heeft bezwaar tegen de boete aangetekend, maar dat is nog niet in behandeling genomen door het Openbaar Ministerie (OM).; Het CJIB laat weten dat zij over individuele gevallen geen uitspraken kunnen doen,; laat doorschemeren dat de kans klein is dat de man de boete ook echt moet betalen.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The driver lodged an objection, which had not yet been handled by the Public Prosecution Service when the reports appeared in February 2024; a CJIB spokesperson declined to comment on individual cases but suggested the chance he would really have to pay was small.","causal_attribution":"The driver's statements and RTL's report of the CJIB spokesperson."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"De camera’s zijn super waardevol.; Je moet alleen twijfelgevallen niet bekeuren.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The driver told Omroep Brabant that he still considers the smart cameras very valuable, provided that doubtful cases are not fined.","causal_attribution":"The driver's own qualification, kept as context."}],"effects":[{"label":"driver fined 380 euros plus costs after an AI phone-detection flag on a photo showing his empty hand","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://nippur.nl/tim-versus-politie-algoritme/","kind":"first_person_account","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch on 2026-11-01; passages translated into English by the research agent (an AI). Read from an Internet Archive capture of 2 May 2025 because the site did not respond.","independence_group":"driver-blog-2024-02"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.omroepbrabant.nl/nieuws/4423832/tim-geflitst-door-slimme-camera-380-euro-voor-krabben-aan-oor","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch on 2026-11-01; passages translated into English by the research agent (an AI). The article interviews the driver.","independence_group":"omroep-brabant-2024-02-20"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.rtl.nl/nieuws/sport/artikel/5436204/tim-krijgt-boete-van-380-euro-voor-krabben-aan-zijn-hoofd","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch on 2026-11-01; passages translated into English by the research agent (an AI). Read from an Internet Archive capture of 17 April 2025 because the site returned HTTP 403; the article interviews the driver and quotes CJIB and OM spokespeople.","independence_group":"rtl-nieuws-2024-02-21"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["public_services","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether the objection succeeded or the fine was paid; no decision has been reported since February 2024.","Whether the camera was in fact a MONOcam; the police have not confirmed the device, and RTL says only that it was probably one.","The exact date of the photo: the driver's blog says mid-October 2023 and RTL says the end of October."],"geography":{"basis":"The photo was taken on the A2 motorway near Weert in the Netherlands, according to the driver and both outlets; RTL Nieuws describes him as a man from a Dutch town, and the fine was issued through the Dutch CJIB.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["NL"],"affected_person_countries":["NL"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a police AI phone-detection camera flagging a driver whose photo, by his account, shows an empty hand at his head, with an officer approving the flag and a 380-euro fine issued. The driver's account, the hedged camera identification and the unresolved objection are attributed.","reviewed_on":"2026-11-01"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Omroep Brabant and RTL Nieuws describe the police camera as using artificial intelligence to register whether a driver is holding a phone, and the driver writes that its algorithm judged that he was holding a mobile device while the photo shows his empty hand at his head; an officer then accepted that flag and the fine followed, so the system's recognition output is reported as wrong and as informing the officer's decision. The camera model rests on the driver's account and RTL's 'probably'; the police have not commented on the case.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Dutch driver says police AI phone camera flagged him for holding a phone while he scratched his head, and an officer approved a 380-euro fine","summary":"Dutch police use mobile smart cameras that apply artificial intelligence to photos of passing drivers to detect whether they are holding a mobile phone; a police officer then reviews each flagged photo before a fine is issued. A driver says that in October 2023, on the A2 motorway near Weert, such a camera photographed him with his right hand at his head and that he received a fine of 380 euros plus 9 euros in administration costs for holding a mobile device while driving. He says the flash photo, which he requested from the Central Judicial Collection Agency (CJIB), shows his empty hand near his face: he was scratching his head, his lease car allows hands-free calling, and he is left-handed. In a February 2024 blog post he writes that the camera was a MONOcam, that its algorithm judged that he was holding a device and that the reviewing police employee accepted that judgement, so that both the algorithm and a person erred; RTL Nieuws reported that the photo was probably taken by a MONOcam. Omroep Brabant described the fine as a mistake by the AI camera. The driver said the reviewing officer was probably biased by the algorithm's output and that a dark shadow in his hand could mislead a quick look. He lodged an objection with the Public Prosecution Service; it had not been decided when the reports appeared in February 2024, and a CJIB spokesperson, who would not comment on individual cases, suggested to RTL that he was unlikely to have to pay. No later outcome has been reported. He also told Omroep Brabant that he considers the cameras valuable for road safety, provided doubtful cases are not fined.","incidentDate":"2023-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-02-20","aiSystem":"Dutch police mobile smart traffic camera that uses artificial intelligence to flag drivers apparently holding a mobile phone, with each flag reviewed by a police officer; identified as a MONOcam by the driver's blog and as probably a MONOcam by RTL Nieuws","aiProduct":"MONOcam (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The driver says he was fined 380 euros plus 9 euros in costs for holding a phone while driving after a police AI camera flagged him and an officer approved the flag, although the photo shows his empty hand at his head; he lodged an objection, whose outcome has not been reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One driver, who describes his own fine in his blog post and in interviews with Omroep Brabant and RTL Nieuws.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"NL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.omroepbrabant.nl/nieuws/4423832/tim-geflitst-door-slimme-camera-380-euro-voor-krabben-aan-oor","primarySourceLabel":"Omroep Brabant, Tim geflitst door slimme camera: 380 euro voor krabben aan oor, 20 February 2024","firstPublishedAt":"2026-11-01T03:07:21.222094+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-11-01T03:07:21.222094+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["traffic-camera","phone-detection","traffic-fine","police","netherlands","public-services"]},{"id":"2023-us-mexico-border-cbp-one-asylum-app-face-capture-failed-black-applicants-advocates-say","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The government announced in early January that the new CBP One mobile app would be the only way migrants arriving at the border can apply for asylum and exemption from Title 42 restrictions; which is now required to apply for asylum","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the Biden administration announced in early January that the CBP One app would be the only way people at the border can apply for asylum and an exemption from Title 42.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In early January 2023 the US government announced that the CBP One app would be the only way migrants arriving at the US-Mexico border could apply for asylum and exemption from Title 42 restrictions; uploading a photo through the app was required to obtain an appointment.","causal_attribution":"Government announcement as reported; the photo requirement is the reporter's and advocates' description."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Non-profits that assist Black asylum seekers are finding that the app, CBP One, is failing to register many people with darker skin tones, effectively barring them from their right to request entry into the US.; The facial recognition is not picking up [images] if people have darker skin tones,; held a workshop for Haitians in Tijuana on how to use the app a day after it went live on 12 January. But with the app unable to map the features of many darker-skinned asylum seekers, they cannot upload their photos in order to receive an asylum appointment with the US immigration authorities, Pinheiro said.; The Haitians at the workshop were getting error after error message on the app","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Because the app cannot map the features of darker-skinned asylum seekers, they cannot upload their photo to receive an asylum appointment, Pinheiro said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Non-profits assisting Black asylum seekers said the app's facial recognition was failing to register many people with darker skin tones, so they could not upload their photos to receive asylum appointments; Al Otro Lado's executive director said Haitians at a Tijuana workshop held the day after the app went live on 12 January got error after error message.","causal_attribution":"Advocates' accounts of what they observed; no technical analysis or CBP confirmation is reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"There are about 4,000 Black asylum seekers waiting in Reynosa and at least another 1,000 Haitians in Matamoros. Hardly anyone is getting an asylum appointment.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The co-director of the Sidewalk School said about 4,000 Black asylum seekers were waiting in Reynosa and at least 1,000 Haitians in Matamoros, and that hardly anyone was getting an asylum appointment.","causal_attribution":"The non-profit's estimate; the figures describe people waiting and are not counted as people harmed."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"One fix they’ve come up with is installing bright construction lights at the shelter in Reynosa, which Haitians and others shine on their faces as they take the photo to upload to the app. “So far it seems to be working, so the adults can get past that,; still not working for children under the age of six.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This prevents families from being able to apply for asylum, since the app will accept only one or two members of the family, but not the rest.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Sidewalk School said shining bright construction lights on faces let adults get past the photo step, but it still did not work for children under six, which prevented families from applying because the app accepted only some family members.","causal_attribution":"The non-profit's account of its workaround and of families blocked."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"said the CBP One app has helped “lighter-skin toned people from other nations” obtain their asylum appointments “but not Haitians” and other Black applicants.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A Haitian Bridge Alliance staff attorney said the app had helped lighter-skinned people from other nations obtain asylum appointments, but not Haitians and other Black applicants.","causal_attribution":"Advocate's comparison; not measured."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Besides the face recognition technology not registering them, there are other barriers, too. Many asylum seekers have outdated cellphones – if they have cellphones at all – that don’t support the CBP One app and often have limited or no access to the internet.; If you can afford to spend $1,000 on a new cellphone, then you can upload the image no problem.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The advocates also described barriers unrelated to facial recognition: many asylum seekers had outdated phones that did not support the app, or limited internet access, and a new phone could upload the image.","causal_attribution":"Kept as context: other causes of failed uploads that the sources do not separate from the face capture."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"CBP did not reply with comments before publication, after being approached with questions by the Guardian.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The Border Chronicle contacted CBP with several detailed questions about the CBP One app, including the problems with its facial-recognition technology. A spokesperson for CBP, Justin Long, said no one was available to respond.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"CBP did not reply to the Guardian's questions before publication, and a CBP spokesperson told the Border Chronicle no one was available to respond.","causal_attribution":"The agency's non-response."}],"effects":[{"label":"advocates say darker-skinned asylum seekers could not pass the app's photo step to obtain appointments","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"advocates say families with children under six could not apply","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/08/us-immigration-cbp-one-app-facial-recognition-bias","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-31; no translation.","independence_group":"del-bosque-cbp-one-2023-02"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theborderchronicle.com/p/facing-bias-cbps-immigration-app","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-31 from an Internet Archive capture of 26 February 2024; no translation. Same reporter as the Guardian article.","independence_group":"del-bosque-cbp-one-2023-02"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["public_services","justice"],"unknowns":["How many people the app's face capture rejected; the advocates give no count.","Whether the rejections came from the facial recognition itself, phone cameras or lighting; no technical analysis is reported.","Whether CBP changed the face capture or how long the problem lasted; neither source reports a later response."],"geography":{"basis":"The advocates describe asylum seekers using the app while waiting in the Mexican border cities of Tijuana, Reynosa and Matamoros to request entry into the United States.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["MX"],"affected_person_countries":["MX"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a government asylum app whose facial recognition, according to non-profits that assisted applicants, rejected the photos of many Black asylum seekers so they could not obtain appointments, the only route then available. The account is attributed to the advocates; other barriers and CBP's non-response are recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-31"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Non-profits running workshops and shelters for asylum seekers told the Guardian and the Border Chronicle that the CBP One app's facial recognition did not register the faces of many darker-skinned applicants: the app returned error messages and would not accept their photos, which were required to obtain an asylum appointment through the app, the only route CBP allowed at the time. The rejection of the photo is the system's own output and the advocates connect it to applicants being unable to get appointments. The attribution rests on the advocates' observations; no technical analysis is reported, CBP did not respond, and the advocates also cite old phones and poor connectivity.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Advocates say CBP One asylum app's facial recognition rejected photos of Black asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border, blocking appointments","summary":"In January 2023 US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) made its CBP One mobile app the only way for migrants at the US-Mexico border to apply for asylum appointments and exemption from Title 42 restrictions; applicants had to upload a photo of themselves through the app. In February 2023 the Guardian and the Border Chronicle, both reporting by Melissa del Bosque, quoted three non-profits working with Haitian and African asylum seekers in Tijuana, Reynosa and Matamoros who said the app's facial recognition was failing to register many people with darker skin, so they could not upload their photos and obtain appointments. The executive director of Al Otro Lado said Haitians at a workshop her organisation held in Tijuana the day after the app went live got error after error message. The Sidewalk School said hardly anyone among about 4,000 Black asylum seekers in Reynosa and 1,000 Haitians in Matamoros was getting an appointment, and that shining construction lights on faces let adults get past the photo step but not children under six, which kept families from applying. A Haitian Bridge Alliance attorney said the app had helped lighter-skinned applicants but not Haitians. The advocates also described other barriers, such as outdated phones and poor internet access. CBP did not answer the Guardian's questions before publication and told the Border Chronicle no one was available to respond. No technical analysis of the failures is reported.","incidentDate":"2023-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2023-02-07","aiSystem":"Facial recognition photo capture in US Customs and Border Protection's CBP One mobile app, required in 2023 for migrants at the US-Mexico border to request asylum appointments, as described by non-profits quoted by the Guardian and the Border Chronicle","aiProduct":"CBP One app","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Advocates say the app's facial recognition failed to register many darker-skinned asylum seekers, so they could not upload their photos or obtain the asylum appointments the app had become the only route to; they say lighting workarounds helped adults but not children under six, which kept families from applying.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"unquantified","affectedCountEvidence":"The advocates describe groups (Haitians at a Tijuana workshop, families with young children at a Reynosa shelter) without counts. The figures of about 4,000 Black asylum seekers in Reynosa and 1,000 Haitians in Matamoros describe people waiting, not people whose photos the app rejected, so they are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/08/us-immigration-cbp-one-app-facial-recognition-bias","primarySourceLabel":"The Guardian, Facial recognition bias frustrates Black asylum applicants to US, advocates say, 8 February 2023","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-31T03:21:06.698324+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-31T03:21:06.698324+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["cbp-one","facial-recognition","asylum","immigration","public-services","us-mexico-border"]},{"id":"2023-new-york-federal-judge-sanctions-lawyers-over-chatgpt-invented-cases-chatbot-said-were-real","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'March 1, 2023 submission that first cited the fake cases'; 'On March 1, 2023, Mr. LoDuca filed an “Affirmation in Opposition” to'; 'citing non-existent cases to the Court in his Affirmation in Opposition'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The original case involved a man suing an airline over an alleged personal injury.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"An affirmation in opposition filed on 1 March 2023 in a personal-injury suit against Avianca cited judicial decisions that did not exist.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court record; BBC reports the nature of the suit."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Mr. Schwartz had used ChatGPT, which'; 'fabricated the cited cases.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"used ChatGPT to look for similar previous cases.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court found that the lawyer who researched the brief had used ChatGPT and that ChatGPT fabricated the cited cases.","causal_attribution":"Finding of the sanctions opinion, based on the lawyer's own testimony and filings; BBC reports his written statement."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'“Is Varghese a real case” and “Are the other cases you provided fake”). (ECF 32-1.) ChatGPT'; 'responded that it had supplied “real” authorities that could be found through Westlaw,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"ChatGPT responds again that the case is real and can be found on legal reference databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"When the lawyer asked ChatGPT whether Varghese was a real case and whether the other cases were fake, ChatGPT replied that it had supplied real authorities that could be found on legal databases.","causal_attribution":"The opinion describes the screenshots the lawyer filed (ECF 32-1); the exhibit itself was not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'the Court finds bad faith on the part of the individual Respondents based upon acts of'; 'A penalty of $5,000 is jointly and severally imposed on'; 'mail a letter individually addressed to plaintiff'; 'mail a letter individually addressed to each judge falsely identified as the author of the fake'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 22 June 2023 the court found bad faith by both individual lawyers, imposed a USD 5,000 penalty jointly and severally on them and their firm, and ordered letters to the client and to each judge falsely identified as an author of the fake opinions.","causal_attribution":"Established by the sanctions opinion itself."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'nothing inherently improper about using a reliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance. But'; 'then continued to stand by the fake opinions'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court said that using a reliable AI tool is not inherently improper and based the sanctions on the lawyers continuing to stand by the fake opinions after the court questioned them.","causal_attribution":"Context and contrary weight: the sanction responds to the lawyers' conduct as well as to the AI output."}],"effects":[{"label":"two lawyers were found to have acted in bad faith and sanctioned over ChatGPT-invented case law","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.54.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-28 from the RECAP copy of the 43-page opinion (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext). The hearing transcript, the April and May affidavits and the screenshot exhibit (ECF 32-1) were not read separately.","independence_group":"sdny-avianca-sanctions-opinion"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65735769","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-28 (HTTP 200). BBC reports the filings before the sanctions hearing.","independence_group":"bbc-avianca-chatgpt-lawyer"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Whether any professional disciplinary body later acted against either lawyer, and whether the sanctions were appealed, was not checked in this review.","Which ChatGPT version was used; the opinion records the lawyer's prompts and the chatbot's responses only as summarised from exhibits.","Whether the fake citations affected the plaintiff's own claim; the separate ruling on the airline's motion to dismiss was not read."],"geography":{"basis":"The brief was filed in, and the sanctions imposed by, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (sanctions opinion). Where the lawyer ran his ChatGPT queries is not stated, so no event or affected-person country is recorded from the court seat.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the federal sanctions opinion of 22 June 2023 documents that ChatGPT fabricated the cases cited in a filed brief, that it told the lawyer who used it the cases were real, and that the court sanctioned two lawyers and their firm after finding bad faith.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-28"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sanctions opinion finds that the lawyer who researched the brief used ChatGPT, which fabricated the cited cases, and records from his filed screenshots that when he asked whether Varghese was a real case and whether the other cases were fake, ChatGPT replied that it had supplied real authorities findable on Westlaw, LexisNexis and the Federal Reporter. The fabricated authorities reached the court in the 1 March 2023 filing; the court read them, found them fake and sanctioned the two lawyers (communicated_with for the lawyer who used ChatGPT; informed_decision_about because the court's sanctions decision acted on the AI-invented authorities). The court based its bad-faith finding on the lawyers' conduct after the citations were questioned.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"New York federal judge sanctions two lawyers whose brief cited cases ChatGPT invented, after the chatbot told one of them the cases were real (2023)","summary":"In a passenger's personal-injury suit against the airline Avianca in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, an opposition brief filed on 1 March 2023 cited judicial opinions that did not exist. The court found that the lawyer who did the research had used ChatGPT, which fabricated the cases, and that when he asked the chatbot whether one of them was real it replied that it had supplied real authorities that could be found on legal databases. On 22 June 2023 the court found bad faith by the two lawyers, based on their conduct after the citations were questioned, and imposed a USD 5,000 penalty jointly on them and their firm, together with letters to the client and to each judge falsely named as an author of the fake opinions.","incidentDate":"2023-03-01","incidentEndDate":"2023-06-22","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2023-05-27","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which the court found the researching lawyer used and which fabricated the cited cases","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's sanctions opinion of 22 June 2023, two lawyers were found to have acted in bad faith and, with their firm, were ordered to pay a USD 5,000 penalty and to write to the client and to the judges falsely named as authors of the ChatGPT-invented opinions.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two lawyers sanctioned in the 22 June 2023 opinion: the lawyer the court found used ChatGPT (counted as the AI user) and the attorney of record who filed the brief. The firm is not counted as a person.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.54.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:22-cv-01461-PKC, Opinion and Order on Sanctions (ECF 54), 22 June 2023","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-28T03:16:40.650766+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-28T03:16:40.650766+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["chatgpt","fabricated-citations","federal-court","sanctions","lawyers","new-york"]},{"id":"2023-massachusetts-high-school-pupil-penalised-for-submitting-ai-text-with-invented-citations-federal-court-refuses-to-undo-penalties","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"indiscriminately copied and pasted text that had been generated by Grammarly.com ... (“Grammarly”), a publicly available AI tool, into their draft script. ... in the submission consists of a citation to a nonexistent book ... citation to Grammarly, and no acknowledgement that AI of any kind had been used.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found, on the preliminary record, that the pupil and a partner copied and pasted text generated by Grammarly, a publicly available AI tool, into the script for an AP U.S. History project, including citations to nonexistent books, without acknowledging any AI use.","causal_attribution":"The court's preliminary finding; the plaintiffs disputed whether the school's AI rules were clear."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"the website flagged parts of the ... submission as AI-generated. ... two additional AI detection tools, which also indicated ... admitted that he had used Grammarly to “generate ideas” and","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the order, Turnitin flagged parts of the submitted script as AI-generated, the teacher's follow-up with revision-history and two further AI detection tools indicated AI generation, and a school official's affidavit says the pupil admitted using Grammarly to generate ideas and create portions of the script.","causal_attribution":"School officials' account as recorded by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"The students received failing grades on two parts of the multi-part project, but ... was required to attend a Saturday detention, and in the ... spring of 2024, he was rejected from the school’s National Honor Society, although he was ... ultimately permitted to reapply and has since been admitted. ... grade of 78.75 (equivalent to a C-plus).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The pupil received failing grades on two parts of the project, was required to attend a Saturday detention, and in spring 2024 was rejected from the school's National Honor Society, although he was later allowed to reapply and was admitted; his year grade in the course was a C-plus.","causal_attribution":"none"},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"about its standards for academic honesty as they apply to the use of AI, that ... from a C-plus to a B. ... For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The parents sued teachers, school officials and the school committee, asking the court to expunge the detention and raise the grade, and contended that the school had not adequately told the pupil how its academic honesty rules applied to AI; the court denied a preliminary injunction on 20 November 2024.","causal_attribution":"none"},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"image of the filed stipulation: STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE ... with prejudice as to all claims and all parties, waiving the right to appeal","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to all claims and all parties, waiving appeal, in February 2025.","causal_attribution":"none"}],"effects":[{"label":"failing project grades, a Saturday detention and an initial National Honor Society rejection after submitting AI-generated text with invented citations","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.275605/gov.uscourts.mad.275605.30.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (CourtListener RECAP copy of ECF 30, HTTP 200, 47 pages); no translation. Memorandum and order of 20 November 2024 on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, based on affidavits, exhibits and hearing testimony from both sides; its findings are preliminary.","independence_group":"d-mass-1-24-cv-12437-pi-order"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.275605/gov.uscourts.mad.275605.40.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Image-only scan (CourtListener RECAP copy of ECF 40, HTTP 200); the page was rendered and read visually by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23 because no text layer or OCR was available; no human reviewer read it. Stipulation of dismissal filed 6 February 2025.","independence_group":"d-mass-1-24-cv-12437-stipulation"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["education","justice"],"unknowns":["The pupil's own account of how he used the tool, beyond the plaintiffs' positions recorded in the order.","Whether the school changed its AI guidance afterwards."],"geography":{"basis":"The pupil attended Hingham High School in Massachusetts, where the project was submitted and the discipline imposed; the suit was in the District of Massachusetts.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with): according to a federal court's preliminary findings, a pupil submitted text and invented citations generated for him by an AI writing tool and the school penalised him; the court refused to undo the penalties and the suit was dismissed with prejudice. The pupil is not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found, on the preliminary record, that the pupil copied text that Grammarly, an AI tool, had generated for him into his project script, including citations to books that do not exist, and the school penalised him for submitting it as his own; the invented citations were among the evidence. Turnitin and two further AI detection tools also flagged the script as AI-generated, and a school official says he admitted using Grammarly.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Massachusetts: federal court refuses to undo a high school's penalties on a pupil found to have submitted Grammarly AI text with invented citations","summary":"In late 2023 a junior at a public high school in Hingham, Massachusetts, and a classmate submitted a script for an AP U.S. History project that, a federal court later found on a preliminary record, contained text copied from Grammarly, a publicly available AI tool, including citations to nonexistent books, with no acknowledgement of AI use. Turnitin and other AI detection tools had flagged the script, and a school official says the pupil admitted using Grammarly. In December 2023 the school treated it as cheating: the pupil failed two parts of the project, served a Saturday detention and was rejected from the National Honor Society in spring 2024, though he was later admitted. His parents sued, arguing the school had not made its AI rules clear; on 20 November 2024 the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts refused a preliminary injunction to undo the penalties, and in February 2025 the parties dismissed the case with prejudice.","incidentDate":"2023-12-01","incidentEndDate":"2024-03-20","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-11-20","aiSystem":"Grammarly, described by the court as a publicly available AI tool, whose generated text and invented citations the pupil copied into a project script; Turnitin and two further AI detection tools flagged the script","aiProduct":"Grammarly (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A pupil found by the court, on a preliminary record, to have submitted Grammarly-generated text with invented citations failed two project parts, served a detention and was initially refused National Honor Society membership; his family's suit to undo the penalties failed.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the pupil whose discipline the suit concerned (ECF 30). The partner student is not counted because the order describes no suit or consequence detail for that student beyond the shared failing grades, and is not identified.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.275605/gov.uscourts.mad.275605.30.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court, District of Massachusetts, No. 1:24-cv-12437, memorandum and order denying a preliminary injunction, 20 Nov 2024 (ECF 30)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-23T03:24:44.992123+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:24:44.992123+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["school","ai-writing-tool","academic-integrity","discipline","lawsuit","hallucinated-citations"]},{"id":"2023-victoria-child-protection-worker-entered-family-information-into-chatgpt-for-court-report-regulator-finds","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Report: 'The Deputy Commissioner therefore found that DFFH contravened both IPP 3.1 and IPP 4.1 and determined that the contraventions were “serious”'; 'Issue a direction to Child Protection staff setting out that they are not to use any web-based or external Application Programming Interface (API)-based GenAI text tools (such as ChatGPT) as part of their official duties'; 'This action must be implemented by 5 November 2024 and maintained until 5 November 2026'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The regulator issued orders to the department, including blocking IP and domains for a range of generative AI websites, including ChatGPT, Meta AI, Gemini and Copilot.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"OVIC's investigation report, published in September 2024, found that DFFH contravened Information Privacy Principles 3.1 and 4.1 over a child protection worker's use of ChatGPT, that the contraventions were serious, and issued a compliance notice requiring DFFH to direct child protection staff not to use web-based generative AI text tools and to block them until 5 November 2026.","causal_attribution":"The regulator's own report and compliance notice establish its findings and orders."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Compliance notice: 'In or around September 2023, a Child Protection worker (CPW1) of the Organisation used'; 'ChatGPT, a web-based generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tool, when drafting a Protection'. Report: 'The report had been submitted to the Children’s Court for a case concerning a young child whose parents had been charged in relation to sexual offences'; 'CPW1 admitted that they had used ChatGPT in drafting the report, but denied inputting personal information as part of this'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"OVIC found that in or around September 2023 a DFFH child protection worker used ChatGPT when drafting a Protection Application Report that was submitted to the Children's Court in a case about a young child whose parents had been charged in relation to sexual offences; the worker admitted to DFFH using ChatGPT for the report.","causal_attribution":"OVIC's finding, based on indicators in the report and the worker's admission to DFFH."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Report: 'OVIC found, on the balance of probabilities, that CPW1 input personal information, including names'; 'By entering personal and sensitive information about the mother, father, carer, and child into ChatGPT, CPW1 also disclosed this information to OpenAI (the company which operates ChatGPT)'; DFFH response: 'it is not possible to definitively confirm that personal information has ever been entered into ChatGPT by the Child Protection Practitioner who no longer works in the department'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Ovic found that, on the balance of probabilities, the worker had entered in personal information.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"OVIC found on the balance of probabilities that the worker entered personal information, including names, about the child, mother, father and carer into ChatGPT, disclosing it to OpenAI; the worker denied entering personal information, and DFFH says this cannot be confirmed definitively.","causal_attribution":"A regulator's finding on the balance of probabilities, contested by the worker's denial; organisations cannot see what staff typed into ChatGPT."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Report: 'First, the PA Report referenced how the child’s father used a particular toy, a doll, for sexual purposes.'; 'The report later referenced the same toy as a notable strength, in that the parents had provided the child with “age-appropriate toys”'; 'ChatGPT failed to properly understand the relevant context, and generated inappropriate and inaccurate content as a result'; 'these deficiencies in the report did not ultimately change the decision-making of either Child Protection or the Court in relation to the child'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'But it also said the report did not change the decision-making of either the child protection agency or the court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"OVIC's report attributes inaccurate content in the report to ChatGPT: having described a doll the father had reportedly used for sexual purposes, the report later cited the same toy as a parental strength ('age-appropriate toys'), which downplayed the risk to the child; the deficiencies did not change the decisions of Child Protection or the court.","causal_attribution":"OVIC attributes the doll passage to ChatGPT from the content itself and the worker's admission of ChatGPT use."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Report: 'DFFH arranged with the Court for the PA Report to be withdrawn and a replacement one submitted. It also notified affected parties about the incident'; 'In the present case, the mother, father, and carer variously described feelings of anxiety and being overwhelmed when informed about their information being disclosed'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to OVIC's report, DFFH arranged with the court for the report to be withdrawn and replaced and notified the affected parties; the mother, father and carer described feelings of anxiety and being overwhelmed when told their information had been disclosed.","causal_attribution":"DFFH's account to OVIC; the family members' reactions are relayed by the regulator, not in their own words."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"DFFH response, 18 September 2024: 'I accept that there was an unauthorized use of ChatGPT by a Child Protection Practitioner'; 'when developing a Protection Application Report for court'; 'the Child Protection Practitioner who no longer works in the department'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In response, the department said it accepted the findings and would work to implement the orders. It said it no longer employed the worker.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"DFFH's Secretary accepted that a child protection practitioner had used ChatGPT without authorisation for a court report and that the department breached the two privacy principles, and the department said it no longer employs the worker.","causal_attribution":"DFFH's own letter, annexed to the report."}],"effects":[{"label":"personal information about a child, the mother, father and carer was entered into ChatGPT and disclosed to OpenAI, regulator finds","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"ChatGPT-generated content in a Children's Court report downplayed the risk to the child; the report was withdrawn and replaced","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the mother, father and carer described anxiety and being overwhelmed when told of the disclosure","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://ovic.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/DFFH-ChatGPT-investigation-report-20240924-Re-upload.pdf","kind":"official_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"OVIC investigation report under s8C(2)(e) of the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic), September 2024, with the compliance notice (Annexure A) and DFFH's response letter of 18 September 2024 (Annexure B); the PDF (re-uploaded November 2024) was read in full on 2026-10-22 from ovic.vic.gov.au (HTTP 200); the report page gives 'Last updated 24 September 2024'.","independence_group":"ovic-dffh-chatgpt-investigation"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/sep/26/victoria-child-protection-chat-gpt-ban-ovic-report-ntwnfb","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Guardian (Australia), 26 September 2024, read in full on 2026-10-22 (HTTP 200). Its account comes from OVIC's report, so it shares that group. Its statement that the worker may have used ChatGPT in 100 cases does not match the report, which attributes the 100 cases to the worker's broader work unit; that statement is not relied on.","independence_group":"ovic-dffh-chatgpt-investigation"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["privacy","public_services","justice"],"unknowns":["Exactly what text the worker entered into ChatGPT; neither DFFH nor OVIC could see the prompts, and the input of personal information rests on a balance-of-probabilities finding.","The exact date of the ChatGPT use (the compliance notice says 'in or around September 2023') and of the court hearing.","Whether OpenAI retained or used the information entered.","Which people were affected in the 100 other cases with indicators of ChatGPT use, and whether their information was entered.","How DFFH has complied with the compliance notice since its first monitoring reports."],"geography":{"basis":"OVIC is Victoria's information regulator, DFFH is a Victorian government department, and the report says the affected child protection case went before the Children's Court, a Victorian court. The family's case was handled by the department in Victoria.","court_countries":["AU"],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":["AU"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-10-06 privacy clarification: a regulator's investigation report finds that a child protection worker entered a family's personal information into ChatGPT, without authorisation, and that ChatGPT-generated text minimising the risk to a child went into a court report. Relations: received_personal_information and made_claim_about. The case adds a statutory child protection setting, a court report and a compliance notice banning generative AI tools.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-22"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"OVIC's report finds that ChatGPT received personal information about the child, mother, father and carer that the worker typed in, which disclosed it to OpenAI, and that ChatGPT generated report text inaccurately describing the parents' care of the child (the doll passage), which went into a report submitted to the Children's Court and downplayed the risk to the child. The finding rests on indicators in the report text, the worker's admission of ChatGPT use and colleagues' accounts; the input of personal information was found on the balance of probabilities and the worker denied it.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Victorian child protection worker put a family's information into ChatGPT to draft a court report that minimised risk to the child, regulator finds","summary":"Victoria's Information Commissioner (OVIC) found in a report published on 24 September 2024 that a child protection worker at the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH) used ChatGPT in or around September 2023 to draft a Protection Application Report submitted to the Children's Court about a young child. On the balance of probabilities, OVIC found the worker entered personal information, including names, about the child, mother, father and carer, disclosing it to OpenAI; the worker admitted using ChatGPT but denied entering personal information. OVIC found generated content in the report described a doll that the father had reportedly used for sexual purposes as a parental strength ('age-appropriate toys'), downplaying the risk to the child, although the court's and the department's decisions did not change. The report was withdrawn and replaced, and the mother, father and carer described anxiety when told of the disclosure. OVIC found serious breaches of two privacy principles and issued a compliance notice requiring DFFH to ban and block generative AI text tools for child protection staff until November 2026; DFFH accepted the breach findings.","incidentDate":"2023-09-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-09-24","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used through its website by a child protection worker of Victoria's Department of Families, Fairness and Housing to draft a court report, without departmental authorisation (per OVIC's investigation report)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"OVIC found that personal information about a child, the mother, father and carer was entered into ChatGPT and disclosed to OpenAI, and that ChatGPT-generated content in a court report downplayed the risk to the child; the mother, father and carer described anxiety when told, according to OVIC's report.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":4,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"OVIC's report finds that personal and sensitive information about the mother, father, carer and child in this case was entered into ChatGPT (four people), and records that the mother, father and carer described anxiety when informed. OVIC says personal information had likely been entered in other cases too; those people are not counted. The worker, the court and DFFH staff are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"AU-VIC","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://ovic.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/DFFH-ChatGPT-investigation-report-20240924-Re-upload.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner: Investigation into the use of ChatGPT by a Child Protection worker (report, 24 Sep 2024)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-22T03:03:14.588614+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-22T03:03:14.588614+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["chatgpt","child-protection","court-report","privacy-regulator","unauthorised-ai-use","personal-information","victoria"]},{"id":"2023-espanola-new-mexico-flock-alpr-misread-plate-sisters-handcuffed-lawsuits","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'pulled the sisters over July 23 on Calle Duran after they had passed through an intersection equipped with a Flock Safety camera, which incorrectly flagged their car’s license plate as belonging to a stolen vehicle, according to the lawsuits.'; 'officers pulled the vehicle over and handcuffed them before placing them in the back of police vehicles prior to discovering the error.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'when Flock notified police that her Kia was stolen.'; 'Body camera footage from the July 2023 stop shows officers stopping the sisters and ordering them to exit the car, before handcuffing them.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In July 2023 Española police stopped the sisters' car after a Flock camera alert identified it as stolen, and officers ordered both sisters out and handcuffed them, including the 12-year-old.","causal_attribution":"The lawsuits as reported, and Business Insider's separate review of the body-camera footage."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'The plate number ended in 2, which the camera incorrectly read as 7, according to the complaint.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'According to an incident report, the camera misread a \"2\" for a \"7.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The camera misread a 2 on the plate as a 7.","causal_attribution":"The sisters' complaint (as reported by the Santa Fe New Mexican) and the police incident report (as reported by Business Insider) agree on the misread."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'compensation for personal injuries including “anxiety, fear, worry and restriction of movement.”'; 'Instead, officers handcuffed the girl and put her in the back of a different police vehicle, according to the complaint.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The sisters' lawsuits sought damages including compensation for anxiety, fear, worry and restriction of movement; the older sister had asked an officer to call their mother to collect the 12-year-old, and officers instead handcuffed the girl.","causal_attribution":"The sisters' complaints as reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Two Rio Arriba County sisters have filed lawsuits against the city of Española'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The family filed a lawsuit and settled with the city in 2025.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The family filed lawsuits against the city of Española and settled with the city in 2025.","causal_attribution":"Filing reported by the Santa Fe New Mexican; settlement reported by Business Insider without terms."},{"id":"c5","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"'Officers said the number was obscured by a license plate cover, though it'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Officers said a license plate cover obscured the number; Business Insider says the number is visible in the body-camera footage it reviewed.","causal_attribution":"Officers' explanation as reported by Business Insider, contradicted by Business Insider's own review of the footage."}],"effects":[{"label":"both sisters, one aged 12, handcuffed and held in police vehicles after a misread license-plate-camera alert flagged their car as stolen","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"lawsuits claimed anxiety, fear, worry and restriction of movement","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/sisters-sue-espa-ola-over-traffic-stop-they-say-was-illegal/article_1c949c30-ae3e-11ee-ad85-f71a8c9ecb1e.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-04 from the Internet Archive 2026 capture (Santa Fe New Mexican, 8 January 2024); the live site returned HTTP 429. Reports the two complaints and the attorney's comments.","independence_group":"espanola-sisters-lawsuits"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.businessinsider.com/flock-safety-alpr-cameras-misreads-2026-3","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-10-04 (Business Insider, 9 March 2026); full text present in the served page. Draws on its own review of body-camera footage and the incident report.","independence_group":"business-insider-records-review"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Settlement terms and date in 2025.","The state district court case numbers; the complaints were not read.","How long the sisters were held before officers found the error."],"geography":{"basis":"The stop took place on Calle Duran in Española, New Mexico; the sisters are from Rio Arriba County, and the suits were filed in New Mexico state district court (Santa Fe New Mexican).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional-use case consistent with the held Flock misread rows: the sisters' lawsuits (Santa Fe New Mexican) and the police incident report and body-camera footage reviewed by Business Insider describe a Flock license-plate-camera misread that led officers to handcuff a 21-year-old and her 12-year-old sister. Neither sister is named here.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-04"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sisters' lawsuits (Santa Fe New Mexican) say a Flock Safety camera incorrectly flagged the plate as belonging to a stolen vehicle, reading a 2 as a 7; Business Insider reports the incident report records the same misread and describes the cameras as Flock's AI cameras. The plate match against a stolen-vehicle record is the automated system's claim about the car; the decision to handcuff both sisters was the officers'.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Police in New Mexico handcuffed two sisters, one a child, after a Flock plate camera misread a digit and flagged their car as stolen, lawsuits say; settled 2025","summary":"On 23 July 2023 Española police officers pulled over a car driven by a 21-year-old woman with her 12-year-old sister as a passenger, after a Flock Safety camera at an intersection flagged the car's plate as belonging to a vehicle stolen in Rio Rancho. According to the sisters' lawsuits, reported by the Santa Fe New Mexican in January 2024, the camera had read a 2 on the plate as a 7, and officers handcuffed both sisters and placed them in the backs of separate police vehicles before discovering the error; the older sister had asked an officer to call their mother, who lived nearby, to collect the girl. The suits sought damages for anxiety, fear, worry and restriction of movement. Business Insider, which reviewed the body-camera footage and incident report, reported in March 2026 that officers said the number was obscured by a license plate cover although it is visible in the footage, and that the family settled with the city in 2025.","incidentDate":"2023-07-23","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-01-08","aiSystem":"Flock Safety automated license-plate-reader camera at an Española intersection (described by Business Insider as one of Flock's AI cameras) that misread the car's plate, matched it to a stolen-vehicle record and notified police","aiProduct":"Flock Safety license plate readers","aiCompany":"Flock Safety","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Both sisters, one of them 12, were handcuffed and held in the backs of police vehicles after the misread alert; their lawsuits claimed anxiety, fear, worry and restriction of movement (Santa Fe New Mexican). The family settled with the city in 2025 (Business Insider).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people, the sisters, both handcuffed and placed in police vehicles (Santa Fe New Mexican; Business Insider). Exact 2.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"US-NM","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_settled","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/sisters-sue-espa-ola-over-traffic-stop-they-say-was-illegal/article_1c949c30-ae3e-11ee-ad85-f71a8c9ecb1e.html","primarySourceLabel":"Santa Fe New Mexican, 8 January 2024: Sisters sue Española over traffic stop they say was illegal","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-04T03:31:48.559655+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T03:03:27.071855+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["flock","alpr","license-plate-reader","misread","wrongful-stop","handcuffed","minor","new-mexico","espanola","justice","made-claim-about","settlement"]},{"id":"2023-reno-peppermill-casino-facial-recognition-misidentification-arrest-killinger-lawsuit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Complaint, introduction paras 1-3: 'reported that their A.I. facial recognition software positively identified the man as M.E., a man they'; 'The Peppermill’s A.I. software was wrong. It mistakenly identified Plaintiff Jason'; 'gaming at the casino, of being M.E. They handcuffed him, took him to their security office, and'; 'On September 17, 2023, the Peppermill Casino in Reno telephoned the Reno Police'; 'had barred from the casino months earlier for sleeping on the premises.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Order, Relevant Background (recounting the complaint): 'security. (Id. at 7-8.) Peppermill’s facial recognition software (“FRS”) identified Plaintiff as'; 'Peppermill’s security handcuffed Plaintiff and placed him in a citizen’s arrest.'; 'In the early morning, Plaintiff was stopped by Peppermill'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'misidentified by the venue’s AI facial recognition technology as a local reprobate, according to court filings.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Mr. Killinger was arrested because the casino’s facial recognition security camera system alerted to Mr. Killinger being a possible match for another individual who had been banned from the premises.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"According to Jason Killinger's federal complaint, in the early hours of 17 September 2023 the Peppermill Casino in Reno reported to police that its AI facial-recognition software had identified him as a man barred from the casino months earlier; the complaint says the identification was wrong and that casino security handcuffed him and held him in its security office.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's allegation, relayed by the court in its background recital and by news coverage of the filings. The casino's system is not named in any inspected source."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Complaint para 5 and para 12: 'recognition software had provided a 100 percent match confirming that KILLINGER was M.E.'; 'fingerprint analysis conclusively established that he was KILLINGER, not M.E. or anyone else.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Order, Relevant Background: 'Plaintiff’s driver’s license and Peppermill’s FRS results confirming a 100% match with the'; 'Defendant did not review any additional documentation before handcuffing'; 'At WCDF, Plaintiff’s identity was positively confirmed.'; 'for biometric intake to confirm his identity.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'According to court filings, police detained Killinger for identification after receiving the facial recognition alert. Fingerprints later confirmed he was not the person flagged by the system, and he was released.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that the responding Reno police officer was told the software had produced a 100 percent match, did not examine the other identification Killinger had on him and in his car, and arrested him and took him to the Washoe County jail to establish his identity, where a fingerprint check confirmed who he was.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's allegation. The court's March 2026 order recites these facts from the complaint and makes no finding on them; the arrest decision was the officer's."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Complaint paras 65-73: 'KILLINGER was in handcuffs approximately four hours'; 'in custody at the jail for an additional nine and one-half hours for a total'; 'contusions (bruising) on both wrists.'; 'This does not include the time he was held by the Peppermill before Jager’s arrival.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The truck driver was detained for 11 hours, according to a wrongful arrest lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Nevada.'; 'For four of those hours, he was handcuffed, resulting in bruises and shoulder pain, per the suit.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The complaint states that Killinger was in police and jail custody for about eleven hours, not counting the time casino security held him, was handcuffed for about four hours and was treated at an urgent-care clinic the next day for bruising to both wrists.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's allegation."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Order, Relevant Background (recounting the complaint): 'At the bench trial, a Reno prosecutor dismissed'; 'the charges against Plaintiff but without prejudice to re-charge Plaintiff within the year.'; 'The next day, Plaintiff'; 'was charged with trespassing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Complaint para 19: 'Even though the charge was eventually dismissed, he'; 'now has a criminal record.'; 'He had never been accused of a crime, arrested, or taken to jail.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Killinger was charged with trespassing the day after his release; at the bench trial a Reno prosecutor dismissed the charge without prejudice, and the complaint says the arrest left him, a man with no previous arrests, with a criminal record.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's allegation, recited by the court without a finding."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The plaintiff has already sued the Peppermill Casino in a case that was settled for an undisclosed amount.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Casino.org reports that Killinger had sued the Peppermill Casino and that the case was settled for an undisclosed amount.","causal_attribution":"Casino.org's report; the settlement terms and any filing against the casino were not inspected."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Order, Conclusion and Part IV: 'liability claim and denied in part as to Plaintiff’s proposed wrongful arrest claim. Plaintiff'; 'incident and a new claim of municipal liability for policies regarding FRS and handcuffing.'; 'Plaintiff concedes there are no cases in the Ninth Circuit clearly'; 'Since Plaintiff previously conceded that no relevant precedent exists'; 'and fails to respond or rebut his own conclusion with any case law'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'In a new filing, a district court has granted his request to add the City of Reno as a new defendant in the case, as well as a new municipal liability claim against the city.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"In an order of 27 March 2026 the court allowed Killinger to add the City of Reno as a defendant with a municipal liability claim concerning policies on facial recognition software and handcuffing, and refused to let him add a wrongful arrest claim against the officer, holding it futile under qualified immunity because he had earlier conceded that no Ninth Circuit case clearly established that arrests based solely on facial recognition were unlawful and cited no case law in reply.","causal_attribution":"Procedural rulings documented by the order; no finding on the merits."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Caption page: '[Proposed] Amicus Curiae Brief of the'; 'Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for'; 'Filed 09/21/26'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"'On September 21, 2026, the ACLU, ACLU of Nevada and the Innocence Project filed an amicus brief in the District of Nevada in support of Jason Killinger'; 'The brief asks the court to rule that police lacked probable cause to arrest Mr. Killinger based on a facial recognition technology result'; 'The brief also asks the court to rule that the City of Reno is liable for Mr. Killinger’s wrongful arrest.'; 'failing to provide training to Reno Police Department officers amounts to deliberate indifference'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 21 September 2026 the ACLU, the ACLU of Nevada and the Innocence Project filed a proposed amicus brief (ECF No. 96-1) supporting Killinger's motion for partial summary judgment, asking the court to rule that police lacked probable cause to arrest him on a facial recognition result and that the City of Reno is liable for failing to train its officers.","causal_attribution":"The filing date and the proposed status of the brief come from its caption; the description of its requests is the ACLU's own. No ruling on the motion or on leave to file the brief was found."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Motion, page 2 and page 18: 'The RPD detective investigated and concluded the Peppermill’s FRT was'; 'were two separate people'; 'had arrested an innocent man.'; 'committed identity theft.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"}],"assertion":"Killinger's motion for partial summary judgment of 12 September 2026 states that after the trespass charge was dismissed the city prosecutor referred the case to a Reno police detective to examine whether he had committed identity theft, and that the detective concluded the casino's facial recognition match was wrong, that he and the barred man were two separate people and that the officer had arrested an innocent man.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's motion summarising the detective's deposition (Exhibit 3), which was not itself read; no court has ruled on it."},{"id":"c9","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Motion, pages 10-11: 'Peppermill from about October 2024 to July 2026.'; 'an alert of 100% on someone who was clearly not the person in the database.'; 'that happen sometimes 12 times on a single shift.'; 'he was told to rely on the alerts not on their identification.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"'generating as many as 12 false matches with “100% confidence” during a single shift.'; 'worked as a Peppermill security officer from October 2024 until July 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"}],"assertion":"The motion cites a declaration by a former Peppermill security officer, employed there from about October 2024 to July 2026, that the system would alert at 100 percent on people who were clearly not the person in its database, sometimes 12 times in a single shift, and that guards were told to rely on the alerts rather than on a person's identification; Casino.org reported the same declaration on 13 October 2026.","causal_attribution":"A former employee's declaration as summarised in the plaintiff's motion and relayed by Casino.org; the security officer started work about a year after Killinger's arrest and describes later practice, not this arrest."},{"id":"c10","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Motion, page 9: 'track FRT false positives. In those years the casino believed a FRT match of 100% was accurate'; 'Towards the end of 2025 the Peppermill discovered that FRT false positives occur'; '10% of the time.'; page 24: 'Peppermill security director'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"}],"assertion":"The motion also cites the Peppermill's security director as testifying that from 2023 to 2025 the casino had no way to track false positives and believed a 100 percent match was accurate, and that toward the end of 2025 it found that false positives occur 10 percent of the time.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's summary of a deposition (Exhibit 1) that was not itself read."},{"id":"c11","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Motion, page 8, quoting the officer in an interrogatory answer: 'Killinger, I had no knowledge that FRT could be inaccurate.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"'In a separate declaration, he said he had never previously known the Peppermill’s facial recognition system to make an incorrect identification.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"}],"assertion":"The arresting officer has said that before the arrest he had no knowledge that facial recognition could be inaccurate; Casino.org reports that he denies wrongdoing and that in a separate declaration he said he had never known the Peppermill's system to make an incorrect identification.","causal_attribution":"The officer's own statements as quoted by the plaintiff and relayed by Casino.org; his denial of wrongdoing is recorded as counterevidence."}],"effects":[{"label":"handcuffed for about four hours and held in police and jail custody for about eleven hours after a casino's facial recognition system wrongly matched him to a barred man","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"prosecuted for trespassing until a prosecutor dismissed the charge without prejudice, leaving an arrest on his record","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Complaint, Killinger v. Jager, No. 3:25-cv-00388 (D. Nev.), filed 30 July 2025 (ECF No. 1, 31 pages), read in full from the free RECAP copy on 2026-10-04. It sets out the plaintiff's allegations, including quotations he attributes to the officer's body-worn camera; it is not a finding.","independence_group":"killinger-plaintiff-pleadings"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041.58.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order of 27 March 2026 (ECF No. 58, 10 pages), read in full from the free RECAP copy on 2026-10-04. Its background section states that it relies on the facts alleged in the original complaint, so its factual recital is not an independent finding; its rulings are documented by the order itself.","independence_group":"killinger-court-order-2026-03-27"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.casino.org/news/peppermill-renos-facial-recognition-tech-leads-to-wrongful-arrest/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Casino.org, 11 November 2025, read live on 2026-10-04. The article attributes its account to the court filings; it is a derivative of the plaintiff's pleadings for the incident facts.","independence_group":"killinger-plaintiff-pleadings"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.kolotv.com/2026/04/08/man-sues-city-reno-over-use-facial-recognition/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"KOLO (Reno), 8 April 2026, read live on 2026-10-04 (short item attributed to court documents).","independence_group":"killinger-court-order-2026-03-27"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://mynews4.com/news/local/facial-recognition-lawsuit-raises-questions-about-ai-use-in-policing-nevada-law-enforcement-police-ai-artificial-intelligence-technology-suspects-lawsuit-killinger-v-jager-city-of-reno-peppermill-resort-us-district-court-fourth-amendment","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"News 4 (Reno, mynews4.com), 14 May 2026, read live on 2026-10-04; attributes the incident account to court filings.","independence_group":"killinger-plaintiff-pleadings"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2026/09/096-1-Proposed-Amicus-Brief.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Proposed amicus curiae brief of the ACLU, ACLU of Nevada and Innocence Project, ECF No. 96-1 (Exhibit 1), filed 21 September 2026, 39 pages, from the ACLU's copy; read for its caption and filing details. Its arguments are the amici's, not findings.","independence_group":"aclu-amicus"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.aclu.org/cases/killinger-v-jager","kind":"organisation_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"ACLU case page (last updated 23 September 2026), read live on 2026-10-04. The ACLU is an amicus supporting the plaintiff; its summary of the arrest relays the litigation record.","independence_group":"aclu-amicus"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041.95.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment based on municipal liability, Killinger v. Jager, No. 3:25-cv-00388 (D. Nev.), ECF No. 95, filed 12 September 2026 (31 pages), read in full from the free RECAP copy on 2026-10-14. It is the plaintiff's argument and summarises deposition testimony and declarations filed as exhibits; the exhibits themselves were not available and were not read. It is not a finding.","independence_group":"killinger-plaintiff-pleadings"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://www.casino.org/news/peppermill-casino-facial-recognition-made-12-false-matches-in-one-shift-ex-guard-claims/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Casino.org report of 13 October 2026, read in full on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200). It reports a former security officer's sworn declaration and the officer's separate declaration from the court filings; it does not say it read the declarations themselves. No translation was needed.","independence_group":"killinger-plaintiff-pleadings"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","privacy","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Which facial recognition product the casino used and what match threshold it applied.","Whether the court has ruled on Killinger's motion for partial summary judgment on municipal liability (ECF No. 95) that the amicus brief supports, and what the City of Reno said in response.","Whether the court has granted Killinger's April 2026 motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 60) or his motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 63).","The terms and date of the reported settlement with the Peppermill Casino.","Whether the officer's deposition admissions, which the March 2026 order mentions without describing, and the amicus brief's statement that Peppermill's records show Reno police arrested at least 16 people on Peppermill facial recognition matches before September 2023 are borne out; neither was tested here.","Whether the detective's conclusion, the security director's 10 percent false-positive figure and the former security officer's account hold up; the record has them only as the plaintiff's motion summarises the depositions and declarations, and the exhibits were not read.","What the October 2026 docket entries that follow the motion (ECF Nos. 112 to 114) say; none could be read."],"geography":{"basis":"The arrest took place at the Peppermill Casino in Reno, Nevada; the complaint states the plaintiff resides in Washoe County, Nevada, and the suit is in the US District Court for the District of Nevada.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a contextual case: a casino's facial recognition system made a claim about a patron's identity that, according to his federal complaint, was wrong and led to his arrest, about eleven hours in custody and a dismissed trespass prosecution. The incident facts are the plaintiff's allegations, relayed by news coverage of the filings and recited without findings in a court order; the procedural rulings are documented. The plaintiff is named because he sues in his own name; the officer appears only by surname in the case caption, and the barred man, whom the complaint identifies only by initials, is not named. The 2026-10-14 review added the plaintiff's September 2026 summary-judgment motion and an October 2026 Casino.org report; their accounts of a detective's conclusion and a former security officer's declaration are allegations in the plaintiff's filing, and the officer's contrary statement is recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges that the Peppermill Casino's 'A.I. facial recognition software' identified Killinger as a barred man and that casino security and the responding officer relied on its reported 100 percent match; it quotes the officer on body-worn camera describing the casino's 'artificial intelligence software'. The court's March 2026 order recites the facial recognition identification from the complaint without a finding. The vendor and system are not named in any inspected source. The handcuffing, arrest and prosecution decisions were made by casino staff, the officer and prosecutors. Killinger's September 2026 summary-judgment motion adds, from deposition testimony it summarises, that a Reno police detective later concluded the match was wrong, and cites a former casino security officer's declaration, covering his employment from about October 2024 to July 2026, that the system often alerted at 100 percent on the wrong people.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Reno casino's facial recognition wrongly matched a patron to a barred man and police jailed him for about eleven hours, his federal lawsuit alleges","summary":"Jason Killinger, a UPS truck driver, alleges in a federal civil-rights complaint filed in July 2025 that on 17 September 2023 the Peppermill Casino in Reno reported to police that its AI facial recognition software had identified him as a man barred from the casino months earlier. According to the complaint, casino security handcuffed him, and the responding Reno police officer, told the system had found a 100 percent match, did not examine his other identification and took him to jail as an unidentified person, where fingerprints confirmed who he was. The complaint says he was handcuffed for about four hours, starting in the casino security office, spent about eleven hours in police and jail custody, and was treated the next day for bruised wrists. According to the complaint, he was then charged with trespassing, and a prosecutor dismissed the charge without prejudice at the bench trial. Casino.org reports that he settled a suit against the casino. In March 2026 the court let him add the City of Reno and a municipal liability claim over facial recognition policies, but refused a new wrongful arrest claim against the officer on qualified immunity grounds. In September 2026 the ACLU, the ACLU of Nevada and the Innocence Project filed a proposed amicus brief supporting him. His September 2026 motion for partial summary judgment says a Reno police detective later concluded that the match was wrong and that he and the barred man were different people, and it cites a declaration by a former casino security officer, who worked there from about October 2024, that the system often alerted at 100 percent on the wrong people; in a declaration reported by Casino.org, the officer said he had never known the system to misidentify anyone. The case is ongoing.","incidentDate":"2023-09-17","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-11-11","aiSystem":"Facial recognition software used by the Peppermill Casino's security system in Reno, which the complaint calls 'A.I. facial recognition software'; vendor not named in the inspected sources","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","legal_harm","physical_injury","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to his complaint, Killinger was handcuffed for about four hours, arrested and held in police and jail custody for about eleven hours after the casino's facial recognition system wrongly matched him to a barred man; he was bruised by the handcuffs, prosecuted for trespassing until the charge was dismissed without prejudice, and left with an arrest record.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the plaintiff, who was arrested and held according to his complaint. Reported allegations about other people arrested on casino facial recognition matches in Reno are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-NV","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041/gov.uscourts.nvd.176041.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Killinger v. Jager, No. 3:25-cv-00388 (D. Nev.), complaint, 30 July 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-04T03:19:04.699044+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:41.476658+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","wrongful-arrest","casino","reno","nevada","justice","made-claim-about","lawsuit"]}]}