{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-11-07T02:58:08.787Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"justice","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2023","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":5,"coverage":{"cases":5,"countries":3,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":5,"minors":0,"coreRelations":3,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"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-colorado-lawyer-suspended-after-motion-cited-fictitious-cases-from-chatgpt-and-he-blamed-an-intern","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'cited case law that he found through the artificial intelligence platform, ChatGPT'; 'discovered that the cases from ChatGPT were either incorrect or fictitious'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The motion cited three cases to support'; 'that were made up by the generative AI program, which the lawyer didn’t realize until it was too late.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyer cited case law found through ChatGPT in a client's motion to set aside a judgment without reading or verifying it, and the cited cases were incorrect or fictitious; Law Week Colorado reports three non-existent Court of Appeals decisions.","causal_attribution":"The disciplinary summary attributes the fictitious citations to ChatGPT; the lawyer's affidavit says the same."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'falsely attributed the mistakes to a legal intern'; 'Six days after the hearing'; 'did not alert the court to the sham cases at the hearing. Nor did he withdraw the motion.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'I think all my cases cited from chatGPT are garbage'; 'the morning he was set to appear in front of the court May 5'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On the morning of the hearing the lawyer realised the ChatGPT citations were fabricated, did not alert the court or withdraw the motion, and falsely attributed the mistakes to a legal intern; six days later he filed an affidavit saying he had used ChatGPT.","causal_attribution":"Findings in the stipulated disciplinary summary and the lawyer's own filed messages."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'denied the motion and ordered'; 'his decision to deny the motion wasn’t based on the made-up cases'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judge denied the motion, ordered the lawyer to explain why he should not be sanctioned and reported to attorney regulators, and later stated that the denial was not based on the made-up cases.","causal_attribution":"Law Week Colorado's report of the court's orders."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'for one year and one day, with ninety'; 'The suspension took effect November 22, 2023.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'with 90 days to be served and the remainder to be stayed upon'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved a stipulation suspending the lawyer for one year and one day, with 90 days served and the remainder stayed on two years of probation, effective 22 November 2023.","causal_attribution":"The disciplinary summary and its relay; one origin."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'it never even dawned on me that this technology could be deceptive'; 'he was “overwhelmingly impressed” by ChatGPT’s capabilities after the program gave him accurate responses to a number of questions he asked as a test'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In his affidavit the lawyer said earlier accurate answers from ChatGPT had made him trust its case citations.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's own account in his affidavit, as quoted by Law Week Colorado."}],"effects":[{"label":"motion cited three fictitious cases supplied by ChatGPT","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"lawyer suspended for one year and one day, 90 days served","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/Family%20Law%20Section%20Folder/AI%20EXHIBITS%20-%20Combined.pdf","kind":"court_record_reproduction","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-26 from an Internet Archive capture of the Colorado Bar Association PDF (the live file returned HTTP 403); page 1 reproduces the Presiding Disciplinary Judge's summary of 23PDJ067.","independence_group":"colorado-pdj-23pdj067-summary"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.lawweekcolorado.com/article/colorado-lawyer-cited-fake-cases-in-motion-written-with-chatgpt/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200, full article body).","independence_group":"lawweek-colorado-2023-06-21"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.lawweekcolorado.com/article/court-opinions-presiding-disciplinary-judge-opinions-for-oct-31-nov-22/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-26 (HTTP 200); relays the disciplinary opinion, so it shares s1's independence group.","independence_group":"colorado-pdj-23pdj067-summary"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether the lawyer's employment with his firm ended because of the motion; the firm did not answer Law Week Colorado's questions.","Which version of ChatGPT was used.","The full stipulation and opinion text beyond the published summary."],"geography":{"basis":"The motion was filed in a Colorado district court by a lawyer working in his firm's Colorado Springs office (Law Week Colorado), and the discipline was imposed by Colorado's Presiding Disciplinary Judge.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because ChatGPT supplied fictitious case citations that a lawyer filed unchecked, and Colorado's Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended him, with the misconduct findings including his false statement blaming an intern. The disciplinary summary records the ChatGPT use and the sanction.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-26"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Presiding Disciplinary Judge's summary records that the lawyer cited case law he found through ChatGPT, that the cases were incorrect or fictitious, and that he later filed an affidavit saying he used ChatGPT; Law Week Colorado reports from the affidavit that ChatGPT supplied three non-existent appellate decisions. The fabricated citations, together with his failure to check them and his false statement about an intern, led to the suspension.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Colorado lawyer suspended for a year and a day, 90 days served, after filing a motion with fictitious ChatGPT case citations and blaming an intern","summary":"A Colorado lawyer who had recently moved into civil litigation used ChatGPT in April and May 2023 to find case law for a client's motion to set aside a judgment and cited three Colorado Court of Appeals decisions that did not exist, without reading or checking them. On the morning of the 5 May hearing he realised the cases were fabricated but did not tell the court or withdraw the motion, and when the judge raised concerns he falsely blamed a legal intern; six days later he filed an affidavit saying he had used ChatGPT. The judge denied the motion, said the denial did not rest on the invented cases, and ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned and reported to attorney regulators. On 22 November 2023 Colorado's Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved a stipulation suspending him for one year and one day, with 90 days served and the rest stayed on two years' probation, for violating rules on competence, diligence, candour to the tribunal and honesty.","incidentDate":"2023-05-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2023-06-21","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which the lawyer used to find case law for the motion and which supplied three citations to decisions that did not exist","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A lawyer who relied on unchecked ChatGPT case citations, then misled the court about them, was suspended from practice for a year and a day, with 90 days served, by Colorado's Presiding Disciplinary Judge.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the lawyer, who used ChatGPT himself and was suspended. The client's motion was denied, but the judge stated the denial did not rest on the fabricated cases, so no harm to the client is counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-CO","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/Family%20Law%20Section%20Folder/AI%20EXHIBITS%20-%20Combined.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Colorado Bar Association exhibit reproducing the Presiding Disciplinary Judge's summary, 23PDJ067, 22 November 2023","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-26T03:14:58.604934+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-26T03:14:58.604934+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["legal","lawyer","chatgpt","fabricated-citations","professional-discipline","own-use","work"]},{"id":"2023-slovakia-ai-voice-deepfake-of-party-leader-and-journalist-discussing-election-rigging-spread-during-moratorium","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Len dva dni pred parlamentnými voľbami zdieľali tisíce slovenských používateľov sociálnych sietí podozrivý zvukový súbor, ktorý bol prezentovaný ako rozhovor medzi Michalom Šimečkom, predsedom Progresívneho Slovenska (PS), a Monikou Tódovou, novinárkou Denníka N. ... Na nahrávke hovoria, že voľby 30. septembra budú zmanipulované v prospech PS.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Neznámy dezinformátor alebo dezinformátori vypustili tesne pred voľbami 2023 novú formu hoaxu, ktorý mal potenciál ovplyvniť výsledky hlasovania. Terčom takzvaného deepfaku – počítačom vyrobenej nahrávky – sa stali predseda PS Michal Šimečka a novinárka Denníka N Monika Tódová. V nahrávke zneli ich hlasy tak, akoby sa dohodovali o manipulácii volieb.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Shortly before Slovakia's 2023 parliamentary election, an audio file spread on social media in which the voices of the Progressive Slovakia leader and a Denník N journalist appear to discuss rigging the election.","causal_attribution":"AFP observed the posts and file itself; Denník N reports the same file from its own position as the journalist's employer."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Na základe nášho vyhodnotenia predmetná nahrávka vykazuje viaceré znaky, že je vytvorená umelou inteligenciou pomocou algoritmov umožňujúcich vytvorenie syntetického/umelého hlasu vytrénovaného na hlasoch reálnych osôb (tzv. audio deepfake) ... Preukazuje to tón hlasu, neprirodzená dikcia, výber slov a podobne.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The director of the Interior Ministry's Centre for Countering Hybrid Threats told AFP that the centre's evaluation found several signs that the recording was created with AI algorithms producing a synthetic voice trained on real people's voices, citing tone, unnatural diction and word choice.","causal_attribution":"Government examining unit's assessment as quoted by AFP; its full method is not published."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Viacerí analytici však pre agentúru AFP na základe hneď niekoľkých faktorov zvukového záznamu uviedli, že nahrávka je podvod vytvorený umelou inteligenciou a technológiou syntetického hlasu.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Several analysts consulted by AFP said, on the basis of several features of the recording, that it was a fake created with artificial intelligence and synthetic-voice technology.","causal_attribution":"Expert assessments gathered by AFP; one expert said it could alternatively be spliced from other calls."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"bývalý poslanec strany Sme Rodina, ktorý ho 28. septembra zverejnil na svojom facebookovom účte. ... napísal v príspevku, ktorý nazbieral viac ako 2200 zdieľaní. ... Jeden z príspevkov na Facebooku bol zdieľaný viac ako 3 000-krát pred tým, ako bol odstránený.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A former member of parliament posted the recording on Facebook on 28 September as authentic and called the party leader a traitor and fraudster, in a post shared more than 2,200 times; another Facebook post was shared more than 3,000 times before removal.","causal_attribution":"AFP's observation of the posts."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Naši súperi vytvorili ďalšie falošné video s hlasom od umelej inteligencie","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The party leader called the recording fake and said his opponents had made another fake video with an AI voice.","causal_attribution":"Depicted person's own statement, relayed by AFP."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Novinárkin advokát Tomáš Kamenec postavil trestné oznámenie na paragrafoch o ohováraní a poškodzovaní cudzích práv. ... Jej trestné oznámenie polícia prvýkrát odmietla už po pár týždňoch. Vyšetrovateľ síce uznal, že išlo o zjavný podvrh, podľa neho však bol málo presvedčivý, a teda nemohol ovplyvniť významnejšiu skupinu voličov. ... S postupom polície sa vtedy nestotožnil ani prokurátor Okresnej prokuratúry Bratislava III, ktorý vyšetrovateľom nariadil prípad riadne prešetriť.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The journalist filed a criminal complaint through her lawyer on defamation and interference with others' rights; police first dismissed it, saying the fake was obvious and unconvincing, and the district prosecutor then ordered a proper investigation.","causal_attribution":"Reported by the journalist's employer; the police and prosecutor decisions themselves were not read."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Vyšetrovateľka Okresného riaditeľstva Bratislava III prerušila trestné stíhanie s vysvetlením, že „sa nepodarilo zistiť skutočnosti oprávňujúce vykonať trestné stíhanie voči konkrétnej osobe“. ... Novinárka Tódová podala prostredníctvom advokátskej kancelárie Paul Q proti tomuto rozhodnutiu sťažnosť.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"After almost a year, an investigator suspended the prosecution because no specific suspect could be identified, and the journalist filed a complaint against that decision.","causal_attribution":"Reported by the journalist's employer."}],"effects":[{"label":"party leader and journalist falsely depicted plotting election fraud; recording spread as genuine; criminal complaint filed","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://fakty.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33WY9LF","kind":"fact_check","access":"read","language":"sk","translation_note":"Read in Slovak by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-22 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. AFP Fakty fact-check published 28 Sep 2023 21:51, updated 29 Apr 2024; direct fetch 403, read in full from an Internet Archive capture (web.archive.org/web/2024id_/).","independence_group":"afp-fakty-sep-2023"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://dennikn.sk/4249286/policia-povedala-ze-nevie-vypatrat-autora-deepfaku-ktory-sa-snazil-ovplyvnit-volby/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"sk","translation_note":"Read in Slovak by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-22 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Denník N report of 27 Oct 2024; Denník N employs the depicted journalist. Direct fetch 403, read in full from an Internet Archive capture (web.archive.org/web/2025id_/).","independence_group":"dennik-n-oct-2024"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["public_life","justice"],"unknowns":["Who made the recording and with which tool.","How the hybrid-threats centre and the analysts assessed the recording beyond the features they cite.","What happened to the journalist's complaint against the 2024 suspension; later reports were not read for this review."],"geography":{"basis":"AFP reports the file spread among Slovak social-media users before the Slovak parliamentary election, so the event country is Slovakia. The party leader leads a Slovak party and the journalist works for the Slovak daily Denník N and filed her complaint with Slovak police (Denník N), so both are placed in Slovakia. No court proceeding is reported.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["SK"],"affected_person_countries":["SK"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): the Slovak Interior Ministry's hybrid-threats centre, which evaluated the recording, said it showed signs of AI synthetic-voice generation, and the imitated voices of a party leader and a journalist were spread as a record of them plotting election fraud. The leader denounced it and the journalist filed a criminal complaint for defamation, which police later suspended for want of a suspect.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-22"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"AFP Fakty quotes the director of the Slovak Interior Ministry's Centre for Countering Hybrid Threats saying that the centre's evaluation of this recording found several signs that it was created with AI algorithms producing a synthetic voice trained on real people's voices, citing tone, unnatural diction and word choice; several analysts consulted by AFP said the same on the basis of features of the recording. The generated voices of the party leader and the journalist were what spread as a supposed record of them plotting election fraud. The tool is not identified, and one expert said the file could alternatively have been spliced from other calls.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Slovakia: audio of a party leader and a journalist discussing vote rigging, which a ministry unit said showed signs of AI, spread before the 2023 election","summary":"Two days before Slovakia's parliamentary election of 30 September 2023, during the pre-election moratorium, an audio file presented as a phone call between Progressive Slovakia leader Michal Šimečka and Denník N journalist Monika Tódová spread on Facebook, Telegram, TikTok and chain e-mails. In it, the two voices discuss rigging the election in the party's favour. The director of the Interior Ministry's Centre for Countering Hybrid Threats told AFP that the ministry's evaluation found several signs that the recording was created with AI synthetic-voice algorithms trained on real people's voices, and other analysts consulted by AFP said it was an AI-made fake. A former member of parliament shared it as authentic, calling Šimečka a traitor and fraudster. Šimečka called it fake. Tódová filed a criminal complaint for defamation; according to Denník N, police first dismissed it, a prosecutor ordered an investigation, and in 2024 an investigator suspended the case because no suspect could be identified.","incidentDate":"2023-09-28","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2023-09-28","aiSystem":"Synthetic-voice (audio deepfake) generation imitating the voices of a party leader and a journalist, according to the Slovak Interior Ministry's Centre for Countering Hybrid Threats and analysts consulted by AFP (tool not identified)","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to AFP Fakty and Denník N, a party leader and a journalist were falsely depicted, through imitated voices that the Interior Ministry's hybrid-threats centre said showed signs of AI generation, as plotting to rig an election; the file spread widely during the moratorium, a former MP presented it as genuine and called the leader a traitor, the leader denounced it, and the journalist filed a criminal complaint for defamation.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"outward","causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two depicted people, the party leader and the journalist, each with a reported objection (the leader's public denial reported by AFP; the journalist's criminal complaint reported by Denník N). Voters who heard or shared the file are an audience and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"SK","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://fakty.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33WY9LF","primarySourceLabel":"AFP Fakty, 28 Sep 2023: Údajná nahrávka telefonátu predsedu PS a novinárky Denníka N vykazuje podľa expertov početné známky manipulácie","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-22T03:05:17.620696+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-22T03:05:17.620696+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["voice_clone","audio_deepfake","election","journalist","defamation","slovakia"]},{"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-asturias-court-security-guard-dismissal-unfair-after-switch-to-ai-camera-surveillance","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'La vigilancia presencial permanente dio paso a un sistema de cámaras con inteligencia artificial, rondas itinerantes y respuesta a alarmas'; 'Duro Felguera contrató el nuevo servicio con Securitas el 1 de agosto de 2023'; 'Securitas sustituyó el 95% del sistema anterior, instaló nuevas cámaras e incorporó cámaras con IA para el análisis de vídeo'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"From 1 August 2023 Duro Felguera replaced the continuous on-site guarding provided by Protectum with a Securitas service that combined cameras with artificial intelligence for video analysis, roving patrols and alarm response, according to La Razón's account of the judgment.","causal_attribution":"La Razón's account of the proven facts of the judgment; the judgment was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'dejó a los vigilantes de la anterior contrata fuera del nuevo contrato'; 'que había extinguido el contrato del empleado el 31 de julio de 2023'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The guards of the outgoing contract were left out of the new contract, and Protectum ended the claimant guard's employment on 31 July 2023.","causal_attribution":"La Razón's account of the case."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'La sentencia 1385/2024 del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias, fechada el 29 de julio de 2024'; 'la nueva adjudicataria quedó absuelta porque el sistema de rondas y vigilancia electrónica era diferente'; 'El despido, sin embargo, fue declarado improcedente'; 'El fallo le reconoció 30.672,72 euros por la extinción del contrato'; 'a razón de 58,76 euros diarios'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The High Court of Justice of Asturias (judgment 1385/2024, 29 July 2024) absolved Securitas of taking on the guard because the new service differed from the old, declared the dismissal unfair and ordered Protectum to pay €30,672.72 plus processing wages at €58.76 a day.","causal_attribution":"La Razón's account of the judgment."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'aunque siguió habiendo intervención humana'; 'La presencia de esa tecnología formaba parte de la reorganización acreditada, pero no convirtió el despido en procedente'; 'El tribunal señala que el nuevo contrato era más barato'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"La Razón states that human intervention continued in the new service and that the presence of AI was part of the established reorganisation without making the dismissal lawful; the court also noted that the new contract was cheaper.","causal_attribution":"La Razón's analysis and its account of the judgment; this limits how far the job loss can be attributed to AI."}],"effects":[{"label":"a security guard lost his job when the client replaced continuous on-site guarding with a remote-monitoring service that included AI video-analysis cameras and roving patrols","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.larazon.es/tecnologia-consumo/inteligencia-artificial/justicia-avala-empresa-reemplace-sus-vigilantes-fisicos-camaras-automatizadas-inteligencia-artificial-mantener-su-plantilla_202610096ac8c68ffb06971aadff1a69.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Read in full in Spanish by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. The article reports the content of TSJ Asturias judgment 1385/2024, which was not itself inspected.","independence_group":"larazon-tsj-asturias-1385-2024-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The location of the guarded installations and how many guards of the outgoing contract lost their jobs.","What the AI cameras analysed and how much of the reduction in on-site guarding they accounted for, as against roving patrols and remote operators.","Whether an appeal for the unification of doctrine was lodged and whether the compensation has been paid.","The text of judgment 1385/2024, which was not inspected."],"geography":{"basis":"The case was decided by the Gijón labour court and the High Court of Justice of Asturias (La Razón). The article does not state where Duro Felguera's guarded installations are, so no event country is recorded from the court's seat; the guard's residence is not stated.","court_countries":["ES"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a consequential-response case: according to La Razón's account of the judgment, a guard's employment ended when the client replaced on-site guarding with a service built on AI video-analysis cameras, and the High Court of Justice of Asturias declared the dismissal unfair. The AI connection and the ruling are reported from one newspaper account; the guard is a private person and is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"La Razón attributes the harm to a client's decision to adopt a security service that included cameras with AI for video analysis. La Razón, describing the proven facts of the judgment, reports that continuous on-site guarding gave way to a system of cameras with artificial intelligence for video analysis, roving patrols and alarm response, and that the guards of the outgoing contract were left out. It also reports that human guards still intervened and that the new contract was cheaper, so the AI cameras are one part of the reorganisation that ended the post. As La Razón reports it, the court's reasoning turned on the changed identity of the service (roving patrols and electronic surveillance, a 95% equipment renewal, a cheaper contract), and the AI cameras appear in its proven facts as one element of that renewal. No source says an AI system produced any output about the guard, so the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Asturias court rules a security guard's 2023 dismissal unfair after a client replaced on-site guarding with AI cameras and patrols, La Razón reports","summary":"According to La Razón's account of a July 2024 judgment of the High Court of Justice of Asturias, Duro Felguera replaced the continuous on-site guarding provided by the contractor Protectum with a Securitas service that, from 1 August 2023, combined cameras with artificial intelligence for video analysis, roving patrols and alarm response. The guards of the outgoing contract were left out of the new one. Protectum ended a guard's employment on 31 July 2023. The court held that Securitas did not have to take him on because the new service was different, declared the dismissal unfair and ordered Protectum to pay him €30,672.72 in compensation plus processing wages. La Razón notes that human guards still intervened in the new service and that the presence of AI was part of the reorganisation without making the dismissal lawful.","incidentDate":"2023-07-31","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-09","aiSystem":"Cameras with artificial intelligence for video analysis, installed by Securitas as part of a remote-monitoring, roving-patrol and alarm-response service that replaced continuous on-site guarding; no product is named","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI video-analysis system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to La Razón's account of the judgment, the guard lost his job when the client replaced continuous on-site guarding with a service built on AI video-analysis cameras, roving patrols and alarm response; the court declared the dismissal unfair and awarded him €30,672.72 plus processing wages against his former employer. Other guards of the outgoing contract were also left out; their outcomes are not reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One counted: the guard whose dismissal the court ruled on. La Razón says the guards (plural) of the previous contract were left out of the new contract but gives no number and does not report whether the others lost their jobs, so only the claimant is counted, as a documented minimum.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"ES","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.larazon.es/tecnologia-consumo/inteligencia-artificial/justicia-avala-empresa-reemplace-sus-vigilantes-fisicos-camaras-automatizadas-inteligencia-artificial-mantener-su-plantilla_202610096ac8c68ffb06971aadff1a69.html","primarySourceLabel":"La Razón, 9 October 2026: report on a High Court of Justice of Asturias judgment on guards replaced by AI cameras","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:24.169189+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:24.169189+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["dismissal","workplace-ai","security-guards","video-analytics","labour-court","unfair-dismissal","consequential-response"]}]}