{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T07:26:20.849Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"lawsuit","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":4,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":4,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-illinois-fireflies-ai-meeting-assistant-voiceprint-capture-lawsuits","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"While physically present in Illinois, Plaintiff participated in a virtual meeting on November 18, 2025 ... During the meeting, Fireflies was enabled by a meeting participant using ... During the meeting, Fireflies recorded Plaintiff’s voice, analyzed her vocal characteristics to distinguish her as a unique speaker, and generated transcripts attributing statements to Plaintiff, thereby capturing Plaintiff’s voiceprint. ... Plaintiff never created a Fireflies account, never agreed to Fireflies’ Terms of Service, and never executed any written release authorizing Fireflies to collect or store her biometric data.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A complaint filed in the Central District of Illinois on 18 December 2025 alleges that, during a virtual meeting on 18 November 2025 that the plaintiff joined while in Illinois, a meeting participant enabled Fireflies, and Fireflies recorded her voice, analysed her vocal characteristics to distinguish her as a speaker and generated transcripts attributing statements to her; she says she never had a Fireflies account or gave written consent.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's own allegation in a complaint; not tested by any ruling."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In March and April 2025, while working from home for his ... The meetings were recorded by the Fireflies account of a ... characteristics to distinguish him as a unique speaker, and generated transcripts attributing ... never created a Fireflies account, never agreed to Fireflies’ Terms of","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A complaint filed in the Northern District of California on 23 March 2026 by another Illinois resident alleges that in March and April 2025, while working from home, he attended virtual meetings recorded through another person's Fireflies account, and that Fireflies recorded his voice, analysed his vocal characteristics and generated transcripts attributing statements to him, without his having an account or giving written consent.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's own allegation in a complaint; not tested by any ruling."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"April 2025 and October 2025, he attended multiple virtual meetings ... on Microsoft Teams that were recorded by his boss’s Fireflies’ ... has attended several virtual meetings where Fireflies was being used. ... voice, analyzed his vocal characteristics to distinguish him as a unique speaker, and generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"A consolidated complaint filed in the Northern District of Illinois on 24 June 2026 alleges that one plaintiff attended Microsoft Teams meetings between April and October 2025 that were recorded by his boss's Fireflies account, and that a second plaintiff attended several virtual meetings where Fireflies was used, and that in each case Fireflies recorded the plaintiff's voice, analysed his vocal characteristics and generated transcripts attributing statements to him.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs' allegations in a consolidated complaint; Fireflies has moved to dismiss."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Fireflies did not inform Plaintiff, in writing or otherwise, that it was collecting her ... Although Fireflies’ software can inform meeting participants that it is present on a meeting, it does not inform participants that it is collecting voiceprints or biometric data.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Fireflies did not inform Plaintiff, in writing or otherwise, that it was collecting his","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Fireflies did not inform Plaintiffs, in writing or otherwise, that it was collecting ... Although Fireflies’ software can inform meeting participants that it is present on a meeting, it does","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"All three complaints allege that Fireflies did not tell the plaintiffs it was collecting voiceprints or biometric data, although its software can tell meeting participants that it is present, and did not obtain their written consent.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiffs' allegations, drafted by the same plaintiffs' firm in all three complaints; the complaints say allegations about other matters rest on information and belief."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Plaintiff hereby dismisses, without prejudice, all of her claims against Defendant in the above-captioned lawsuit","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff in the Central District of Illinois case voluntarily dismissed all her claims without prejudice on 10 March 2026.","causal_attribution":"Established by the filed notice. The notice gives no reason."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"staying this case pending the resolution of Fireflies’ anticipated motion to dismiss the amended ... two nearly identical cases filed in the ... Document 25 Filed 04/24/26 ... IT IS S ... O ORD","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"In the California case the plaintiff and Fireflies jointly asked the court to stay proceedings pending Fireflies' anticipated motion to dismiss in the Illinois cases, which the stipulation calls nearly identical, and the court entered the stipulation with its order stamp on 24 April 2026.","causal_attribution":"Established by the filed joint stipulation and the court’s order stamp on it (document 25)."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"First, plaintiffs lack Article III standing to assert a claim under Section 15(a) of BIPA ... Second, the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety under Rule 12(b)(2) because ... By referring to “biometric data” here and elsewhere, Fireflies does not concede that it collected, possessed, stored, or used any data regarding plaintiffs that falls within the scope of BIPA.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"Fireflies has moved to dismiss the Northern District of Illinois case, arguing among other things lack of standing for one claim and lack of personal jurisdiction, and says it does not concede that it collected, stored or used any data about the plaintiffs that falls within the Illinois biometric privacy law.","causal_attribution":"Established as the content of Fireflies' filed motion; its arguments are a party's position, not a ruling."}],"effects":[{"label":"plaintiffs say an AI meeting assistant they never signed up for recorded their voices and captured voiceprints without notice or written consent","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Class action complaint, C.D. Ill. No. 3:25-cv-03399, filed 18 December 2025; read in full on 2026-10-20 from the CourtListener RECAP copy.","independence_group":"cdill-plaintiff-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340.13.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Notice of voluntary dismissal, C.D. Ill. No. 3:25-cv-03399, filed 10 March 2026; read on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy).","independence_group":"cdill-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.466340/gov.uscourts.cand.466340.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Class action complaint, N.D. Cal. No. 3:26-cv-02479, filed 23 March 2026; read in full on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy).","independence_group":"ndcal-plaintiff-complaint"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.466340/gov.uscourts.cand.466340.25.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Joint stipulation requesting a stay (dated 23 April 2026), entered as document 25 on 24 April 2026 with the court’s ‘IT IS SO ORDERED’ stamp on page 4 (the text layer renders the stamp in fragments), N.D. Cal. No. 3:26-cv-02479; read on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy).","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496785/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496785.27.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Consolidated class action complaint, N.D. Ill. No. 1:26-cv-02675, filed 24 June 2026; read in full on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy).","independence_group":"ndill-plaintiffs-complaint"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496785/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496785.31.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Fireflies.AI Corp.'s motion to dismiss, N.D. Ill. No. 1:26-cv-02675, filed 15 July 2026; read on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy).","independence_group":"fireflies-motion"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","work"],"unknowns":["Whether Fireflies in fact created voiceprints of the plaintiffs: it does not concede collecting biometric data and no court has ruled.","Whether the plaintiffs knew the meetings were being recorded or transcribed; the complaints say only that they were not told voiceprints were collected.","Why the first plaintiff dismissed her case without prejudice.","The outcome of Fireflies' motion to dismiss the consolidated Illinois case.","The fourth plaintiff's meeting dates are not stated in the consolidated complaint."],"geography":{"basis":"Each complaint says the plaintiff took part in the meetings while physically present in Illinois (C.D. Ill. and N.D. Cal. complaints; N.D. Ill. consolidated complaint). The courts are federal courts in Illinois and California.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-10-06 privacy clarification: four Illinois residents allege in filed complaints that an AI meeting assistant enabled by someone else recorded their voices, analysed them to distinguish speakers and generated transcripts attributing statements to them, capturing voiceprints without notice or written consent. The captures are allegations, Fireflies contests the suits, and one case was voluntarily dismissed. Plaintiffs, employers and the hosting organisation are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-20"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Each complaint alleges that the Fireflies AI meeting assistant, enabled by another participant's or an organisation's account, itself recorded the plaintiff's voice in a virtual meeting, analysed the plaintiff's vocal characteristics to distinguish speakers and generated transcripts attributing statements to the plaintiff, capturing a voiceprint without notice or written consent (C.D. Ill., N.D. Cal. and N.D. Ill. complaints). That capture of the plaintiffs' voices and voiceprints by an AI transcription service is the reported privacy harm. Fireflies says it does not concede that it collected any biometric data about the plaintiffs, and no court has ruled, so the capture is alleged.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"Illinois residents allege in lawsuits that Fireflies.AI's meeting assistant captured their voiceprints without notice or consent","summary":"Four Illinois residents who say they never had Fireflies accounts allege in four federal lawsuits, two of them later consolidated, that the Fireflies.AI meeting assistant, enabled by a colleague, boss or meeting organiser, recorded their voices in Zoom or Microsoft Teams meetings between March and November 2025, analysed their vocal characteristics to tell speakers apart and generated transcripts attributing statements to them, capturing voiceprints without telling them or obtaining written consent, in breach of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. One plaintiff dismissed her case without prejudice in March 2026; the California court stayed its case at both parties’ joint request in April 2026; Fireflies has moved to dismiss the consolidated Illinois case and does not concede that it collected biometric data about the plaintiffs.","incidentDate":"2025-03-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-11-18","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2025-12-18","aiSystem":"Fireflies, Fireflies.AI Corp.'s AI meeting assistant, joined to Zoom and Microsoft Teams meetings through another participant's or organisation's account (as alleged in the complaints)","aiProduct":"Fireflies.AI meeting assistant (reported)","aiCompany":"Fireflies.AI Corp.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Four Illinois residents allege that an AI meeting assistant they never signed up for recorded their voices and captured voiceprints without notice or consent; Fireflies contests the suits and no ruling has found a capture.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":4,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Four named plaintiffs each allege their own voice was recorded and voiceprint captured (C.D. Ill. complaint; N.D. Cal. complaint; N.D. Ill. consolidated complaint for two plaintiffs). Putative class members and Fireflies' stated user numbers are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Class action complaint against Fireflies.AI Corp., C.D. Ill. No. 3:25-cv-03399, filed 18 December 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-20T03:13:40.245348+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-20T03:13:40.245348+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["fireflies-ai","ai-notetaker","meeting-transcription","privacy","bipa","voiceprint","class-action","non-user"]},{"id":"2025-san-diego-health-system-patient-alleges-ai-scribe-recorded-exam-room-visit-without-consent","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court claims Sharp HealthCare secretly recorded doctor-patient conversations using an artificial intelligence tool'; 'The tool records conversations between patients and clinicians and then generates draft medical notes.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A recent lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court alleges that Sharp HealthCare recorded conversations between doctors and their patients without written consent, using the information to document visits with an artificial intelligence program developed by a private company in Pittsburgh.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'A lawsuit in San Diego claims Sharp Healthcare recorded doctor visits without written consent, while using an A.I. tool called Abridge to take notes.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A proposed class action filed in San Diego Superior Court alleges that Sharp HealthCare used the AI app Abridge, which records patient-clinician conversations and generates draft medical notes, and recorded doctor-patient conversations without patients' consent.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's allegations, relayed by three outlets (one underlying origin: the complaint); not tested in court in the sources read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sharp began using an AI app called Abridge in April of this year, according to the complaint.'; 'sent the audio to the company’s servers, where employees could review it.'; 'Patients were never informed that their appointments were being recorded or given an opportunity to consent or opt-out, the lawsuit alleges.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Recordings, the lawsuit states, were transmitted to Abridge'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the complaint, Sharp began using Abridge in April 2025, and the app captured everything said in the exam room and sent the audio to the company's servers, where employees could review it; patients were never informed or given a chance to consent or opt out.","causal_attribution":"Complaint allegations; the start date and server review detail are in the KPBS relay only, the transmission to Abridge in both."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'said he discovered the recording only after reading his medical notes from a July appointment at a Sharp Rees-Stealy clinic. When he contacted Sharp, the lawsuit said the clinic apologized, acknowledged the recording occurred and told him the file could remain on the vendor’s servers for about a month before being deleted.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff says he discovered that a July appointment at a Sharp clinic had been recorded only after reading his medical notes; according to the lawsuit the clinic apologised, acknowledged the recording and said the file could remain on the vendor's servers for about a month.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's account in the complaint as reported by KPBS; Sharp's acknowledgement is as described in the lawsuit, not a Sharp statement read directly."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It also claims that Abridge automatically inserted incorrect statements into medical charts, documenting that patients “were advised” the visit was being recorded and that they “consented,” even when the patient said it never happened.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that Abridge automatically inserted incorrect statements into medical charts documenting that patients were advised the visit was being recorded and consented, even when the patient said it never happened.","causal_attribution":"Complaint allegation relayed by KPBS only; whether the tool or a clinician produced the entries is not established in the sources."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The lawsuit seeks damages, corrections to medical records, and a court order blocking the use of the AI tool without proper consent. It estimates that more than 100,000 Sharp patients may have been recorded during the rollout.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'seeks class action status and damages that could reach five thousand dollars per violation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The lawsuit seeks class status, damages, corrections to medical records and an order blocking use of the tool without consent, and estimates that more than 100,000 Sharp patients may have been recorded.","causal_attribution":"The relief sought and the estimate are the complaint's; the estimate is of people possibly recorded."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Both Sharp and Counterpoint Legal said they cannot comment on pending litigation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Sharp said that while \"patient safety and privacy are our top priorities at all times,\" it is \"unable to comment on pending litigation.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Sharp said patient safety and privacy are its top priorities and that it could not comment on pending litigation.","causal_attribution":"Sharp's statements to two outlets (one party); no response to the substance of the allegations is reported."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Abridge suggests that doctors could say, \"I will be using a tool that records our conversation to help me write my clinical note, so I can pay more attention to our conversation and less time on the computer. Is that okay with you?\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Other local hospitals say they use similar tech, but with patient permission.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Abridge's support material suggests consent language clinicians could use with patients, and other San Diego providers using similar tools say they require patient consent.","causal_attribution":"Context from the Union-Tribune's review of Abridge's support pages and both outlets' comments from other providers; not a statement about this visit."}],"effects":[{"label":"confidential clinic visit recorded and sent to an AI vendor without the patient’s knowledge (alleged)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"chart entry stating consent the patient says he never gave (alleged)","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/health/2025/12/11/lawsuit-claims-sharp-healthcare-secretly-recorded-exam-room-conversations-without-patient-consent","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; no translation.","independence_group":"kpbs-11-dec-2025"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://medicalxpress.com/news/2026-01-ai-exam-room-lawsuit-alleges.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; no translation.","independence_group":"san-diego-union-tribune-6-jan-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ai-in-the-exam-room-lawsuit-says-not-so-fast/ar-AA1TG8JK","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; no translation.","independence_group":"san-diego-union-tribune-6-jan-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["health","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether a court has ruled on the complaint or certified a class.","Sharp's and Abridge's response to the substance of the allegations.","How many patients were recorded without consent; the 100,000 figure is the complaint's estimate of patients who may have been recorded.","Whether the consent statements in charts were produced by the tool or entered by clinicians, beyond the complaint's allegation.","Whether recordings were used for anything beyond note generation."],"geography":{"basis":"The recorded visit was at a Sharp clinic and the suit was filed in San Diego Superior Court (KPBS; Union-Tribune). The plaintiff's country of residence is not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a privacy-capture case (received_personal_information) under the 2026-10-06 boundary: a reported complaint describes a patient's confidential visit actually being recorded into an AI documentation service and sent to its vendor without his knowledge, with the AI-generated chart allegedly stating he consented (made_claim_about). All facts are attributed to the complaint.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-17"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"According to the complaint as reported by KPBS and the San Diego Union-Tribune, Sharp's AI documentation app Abridge recorded the conversation at the plaintiff's July clinic visit and transmitted the audio to Abridge's servers to generate draft notes, without his knowledge or consent; the lawsuit says the clinic acknowledged the recording. The complaint also alleges that Abridge inserted chart statements that he had been advised and had consented. That capture and disclosure of his confidential visit, and the false consent entry, are the reported harm. These are allegations not yet tested in court.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Class action alleges San Diego health system Sharp's Abridge AI scribe recorded a patient's exam-room visit without consent and charted false consent","summary":"A proposed class action filed in San Diego Superior Court in late 2025 alleges that Sharp HealthCare, which began using the AI documentation app Abridge in April 2025, recorded doctor-patient conversations without telling patients, sent the audio to the vendor's servers and used it to generate draft medical notes. According to the lawsuit as reported by KPBS, the named plaintiff discovered that a July appointment at a Sharp clinic had been recorded only when he read his medical notes; the clinic apologised, acknowledged the recording and told him the file could stay on the vendor's servers for about a month. The complaint also alleges that Abridge inserted statements into charts that patients had been advised of the recording and had consented, when the plaintiff says that never happened. It seeks damages, corrected medical records and an order against using the tool without consent, and estimates that more than 100,000 patients may have been recorded. Sharp told reporters it could not comment on pending litigation. The allegations have not been tested in court in the sources read.","incidentDate":"2025-07-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-12-11","aiSystem":"Abridge, an AI clinical documentation app that, according to the complaint as reported, records patient-clinician conversations and generates draft medical notes; deployed by Sharp HealthCare from April 2025","aiProduct":"Abridge (reported)","aiCompany":"Abridge","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_autonomy","other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to a proposed class action, a patient's confidential clinic visit was recorded by an AI documentation tool and sent to its vendor without his knowledge or consent, and his chart falsely recorded that he had consented.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the named plaintiff whose July visit, the lawsuit says, was recorded (KPBS). The complaint alleges other patients were recorded without consent but gives only an estimate that more than 100,000 'may have been recorded', which is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/health/2025/12/11/lawsuit-claims-sharp-healthcare-secretly-recorded-exam-room-conversations-without-patient-consent","primarySourceLabel":"KPBS, 11 December 2025: lawsuit claims Sharp HealthCare secretly recorded exam room conversations without patient consent","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-17T03:04:33.888418+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-17T03:04:33.888418+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai_scribe","ambient_documentation","recording_without_consent","medical_privacy","class_action"]},{"id":"2025-lipps-facial-recognition-wrongful-jailing","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Surveillance 'showed woman using a fake US army military ID to withdraw tens of thousands'; the 8-count charge list.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Zibolski 'acknowledged that investigators made incorrect assumptions based on the West Fargo Police Department's Clearview AI facial recognition technology'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"Warrant signed 2025-07-01 with nationwide extradition; the chief: the case 'was not solely based on just that one piece'; 'an AI function through the North Dakota State Intelligence Center'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The case began with bank-fraud surveillance of a woman using a fake U.S. Army military ID to withdraw tens of thousands of dollars; an AI facial-recognition identification tied Lipps to that surveillance — recorded by Snopes as the West Fargo Police Department's Clearview AI technology, and by Fargo's chief as 'an AI function through the North Dakota State Intelligence Center... not anything that we own'; a nationwide-extradition warrant was signed on 1 July 2025.","causal_attribution":"The vendor attribution differs between the chains (Clearview per Snopes' reading of the WFPD investigation; the state intelligence center's function per the chief) and is recorded with the discrepancy."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'US marshals arrested Lipps at her Tennessee home while she was babysitting four children... taken away at gunpoint'; 'nearly four months without bail'; bank records 'more than 1,200 miles away in Tennessee'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"PD timeline: TN waiver 10-20; booked Cass Co. 10-30; bank records presented 12-12; dismissal agreed 12-23; released 12-24.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Dismissal 'without prejudice... Angela remains a person they are investigating'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"U.S. Marshals arrested her at gunpoint at her Tennessee home on 14 July 2025 while she babysat four children; she fought extradition for about three months in a Tennessee jail, was booked into Cass County on 30 October, and was released on 24 December after her bank records showed her more than 1,200 miles away in Tennessee; charges were dismissed without prejudice.","causal_attribution":"The custody timeline is consistent across the Guardian, KVLY's police timeline and Snopes; the dismissal's without-prejudice character comes from KVLY's attorney piece."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"KVLY-obtained email 'showed six Fargo detectives were notified of Lipps' arrest in July — nearly five months before Fargo Police say they knew she was in custody'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"An email obtained by KVLY shows six Fargo detectives were notified of her arrest in July 2025 — nearly five months before the department says it learned she was in custody (5 December).","causal_attribution":"KVLY's own document reporting; the department's stated knowledge date comes from its police timeline."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"The 'incorrect assumptions' concession (Snopes' reading of the 24 March presser).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"The chief's 'not solely based on just that one piece' and the state-center tool description.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Stefonowicz's April statement on an apology.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Fargo Police Chief Dave Zibolski acknowledged 'incorrect assumptions' linked to the AI identification while insisting the case 'was not solely based on just that one piece'; incoming Chief Stefonowicz said in April that if Ms. Lipps deserves an apology, 'I will absolutely be the first person to reach out'.","causal_attribution":"The concession's exact wording beyond Snopes' paraphrase is unverified; both chiefs' positions are recorded as stated."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'lost her home, her car and her dog.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Rice: 'pursuing potential civil rights claims, though no lawsuit has been filed'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"She lost her home, her car and her dog; her attorney Eric Rice said he was pursuing potential civil-rights claims, with no lawsuit filed as of 31 March 2026.","causal_attribution":"The losses are from the Guardian's account of her situation; the claim status is the attorney's statement as of 31 March 2026."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Angela Lipps, of Elizabethton, Tennessee, filed the federal lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in North Dakota against the City of Fargo and Fargo Police Department Detective Lucas Heck'; 'The complaint says Heck failed to disclose that the facial recognition result was actually based on a photo from the suspect's fake ID, not the surveillance footage'; 'The lawsuit brings five claims... Lipps is seeking $10 million in damages'; 'These are allegations contained in a civil complaint. No response has been filed as of this writing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"On 15 September 2026 Lipps filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit in the District of North Dakota against the City of Fargo and Detective Lucas Heck seeking $10 million, alleging that he relied on a flawed facial-recognition match based on the suspect's fake-ID photo, ignored exculpatory evidence and failed to disclose that such results are only investigative leads; the suit brings five claims and says the department had no facial-recognition policy or training at the time.","causal_attribution":"The filing and its contents are reported by the same station chain (KVLY) that broke the case; the complaint itself was not inspected, so the claim is recorded as reported rather than documented. The InForum report of the same filing answered HTTP 403."}],"effects":[{"label":"five months wrongfully jailed on an AI facial-recognition identification, with lasting losses","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/12/tennessee-grandmother-ai-fraud","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (12 Mar 2026, Marina Dunbar).","independence_group":"guardian"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.valleynewslive.com/2026/03/17/chief-zibolski-ai-was-lead-not-only-evidence-wrongful-jail-allegation/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (17 Mar 2026, Alix Larsen).","independence_group":"kvly"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.valleynewslive.com/2026/04/01/attorney-discusses-potential-lawsuit-after-tennessee-grandmother-jailed-by-facial-recognition-error/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (31 Mar 2026, Ethan Kramer).","independence_group":"kvly"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ai-tennessee-woman-jail/","kind":"fact_check","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (19 Jul 2026, updated 22 Jul; rating True). Aggregates the InForum/WDAY originals (blocked, 403); its Clearview attribution reflects that chain.","independence_group":"snopes"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.valleynewslive.com/2026/09/15/tennessee-woman-sues-fargo-ex-detective-over-wrongful-arrest-tied-facial-recognition-error/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-16 (datePublished 2026-09-15T17:39Z; Valley News Live, which first reported the case in March 2026).","independence_group":"kvly"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The InForum original investigation (the first reporting chain) is blocked (403) and was not read; Snopes' and the Guardian's accounts of it are used instead.","The exact wording of the 'incorrect assumptions' concession beyond Snopes' paraphrase is unverified.","The vendor question — Clearview AI (per Snopes) versus the North Dakota State Intelligence Center's AI function (per the chief) — is unresolved.","The woman in the bank-fraud surveillance (the actual suspect) is not reported as identified; the dismissal without prejudice leaves the investigation open.","Her arrest's bail conditions and the custody conditions are not detailed in the inspected sources.","The federal complaint (filed 15 September 2026) was not inspected and its case number is not given in the inspected report; the InForum account of the filing was blocked (403)."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: arrest at her Tennessee home; jailing in Tennessee and Cass County, North Dakota; the underlying bank fraud in the Fargo/West Fargo area. Affected person: Lipps, Tennessee. Court: the Cass County charges (dismissed), North Dakota.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional automated-decision case (made_decision_about / made_claim_about): an AI facial-recognition identification set five months of wrongful custody in motion, documented by the Guardian, an independent local chain with its own document reporting (KVLY), and a fact-check carrying the blocked original chain. She is named in national coverage; the police chiefs' accounts are preserved as contrary context. Updated 16 September 2026 with the $10 million federal suit filed on 15 September, recorded from the Valley News Live report as a reported claim.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Snopes records the misidentification as based on the West Fargo PD's Clearview AI technology; Fargo's police chief separately describes 'an AI function through the North Dakota State Intelligence Center' and concedes 'incorrect assumptions' while insisting the case was not solely based on that one piece. The vendor attribution (Clearview vs the state center's function) is recorded with the discrepancy.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Tennessee grandmother Angela Lipps jailed five months on an AI facial-recognition misidentification; charges dismissed after bank records placed her 1,200 miles away","summary":"On 14 July 2025, U.S. Marshals arrested Angela Lipps, a 50-year-old Tennessee grandmother, at gunpoint at her home while she was babysitting four children, on a nationwide-extradition North Dakota warrant: West Fargo police's AI facial-recognition technology had tied her to bank-fraud surveillance of a woman using a fake U.S. Army military ID to withdraw tens of thousands of dollars. She fought extradition for about three months in a Tennessee jail, was booked into Cass County, North Dakota on 30 October 2025 on four counts of unauthorized use of personal identifying information and four counts of theft, and was released on 24 December after her bank records showed her more than 1,200 miles away in Tennessee; charges were dismissed without prejudice. Fargo's police chief acknowledged 'incorrect assumptions' linked to the AI identification; an email obtained by KVLY shows six Fargo detectives were notified of her arrest in July, nearly five months before the department says it knew she was in custody. She lost her home, her car and her dog; her attorneys are pursuing potential civil-rights claims, with no lawsuit filed as of 31 March 2026. On 15 September 2026 she filed a $10 million federal civil-rights suit in the District of North Dakota against the City of Fargo and the detective, alleging he relied on a flawed facial-recognition match and ignored exculpatory evidence.","incidentDate":"2025-07-14","incidentEndDate":"2025-12-24","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-03-12","aiSystem":"Clearview AI facial recognition (per Snopes' account of the West Fargo PD investigation); described by Fargo's chief as 'an AI function through the North Dakota State Intelligence Center'","aiProduct":"Clearview AI facial recognition (reported)","aiCompany":"Clearview AI (vendor per Snopes); North Dakota State Intelligence Center (per Fargo police chief)","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","loss_of_autonomy","reputational_harm","property_loss","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Five months jailed on an AI-driven misidentification — arrested at gunpoint while babysitting, held states away from home — ending only when her bank records proved she was 1,200 miles away; she lost her home, car and dog, and the dismissal without prejudice leaves her 'a person they are investigating'.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: Lipps, the misidentified defendant (three chains; her attorneys' account). The children she was babysitting are recorded in the narrative but not counted as harmed persons (no harm to them is reported).","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/12/tennessee-grandmother-ai-fraud","primarySourceLabel":"The Guardian (12 Mar 2026, Marina Dunbar) — the arrest, the custody ordeal, the losses","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T10:28:13.154947+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:08.693119+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["civil-rights","clearview","facial-recognition","justice","lawsuit","made-claim-about","made-decision-about","north-dakota","tennessee","wrongful-arrest"]},{"id":"2025-keene-v-google-ai-overview-defamation","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Opinion page 2 lists Overviews 1–4 separately: 1, 2 and 4 concern life without parole; 2 mentions murders of three women; 3 says he was convicted of drug trafficking. The analysis of Overview 3 and conclusion explain its substantial-truth dismissal.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Complaint excerpt: statements that he 'is serving a life sentence without parole for multiple convictions' and 'for the murders of 3 women'.","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The court’s opinion recounts four challenged Google AI Overviews between approximately 24 May and 27 June 2025. The complaint alleges that Overviews 1, 2 and 4 falsely said Keene was serving life without parole, with Overview 2 adding murders of three women. Overview 3 instead said he had been convicted of drug trafficking; the court considered that statement substantially true.","causal_attribution":"Allegations of the complaint as recited by the court; accepted as true only for the motion to dismiss."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2: 'Keene complained to Google about the false statements on three occasions ... Google allegedly apologized ... and deemed the statements errors made by its Artificial Intelligence.' and 'AI Overviews 1 and 2 were seen by various family members, friends, and acquaintances.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Complaint excerpt: 27 May 2025 complaint; Google 'privately apologized', attributing the statements to 'an unknown error made by their Artificial Intelligence Platform'.","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges he notified Google on 27 May, 31 May and after 27 June 2025, that Google apologised each time and attributed the statements to errors by its AI, and that Overviews 1 and 2 were seen by family members, friends and acquaintances.","causal_attribution":"Allegations as recited by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 1 and 12: 'that motion is granted in part and denied in part' ... 'the Court denies Google's motion to dismiss AI Overviews 1 and 2, and grants Google's motion to dismiss AI Overviews 3 and 4 without prejudice. Keene may file an amended complaint by October 13, 2026.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Docket entry 29, 14 September 2026: 'Memorandum Opinion and Order AND Order on Motion to Dismiss'.","relation":"context","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Post quoting the opinion's actual-malice and disclaimer holdings.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 14 September 2026 Judge Thomas M. Durkin denied Google's motion to dismiss the defamation per se claim as to Overviews 1 and 2, holding that the plaintiff, a public figure, had plausibly pleaded actual malice through his three notifications, and dismissed the claims on Overviews 3 (substantially true) and 4 (publication not alleged) without prejudice, with leave to amend by 13 October 2026.","causal_attribution":"Court ruling on the pleadings; no finding of liability."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2: 'Keene filed his complaint ... on July 30, 2025, in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Google removed the suit to federal court on September 22, 2025.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Docket header: filed 22 September 2025, No. 1:25-cv-11431.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County on 30 July 2025 and removed by Google to federal court on 22 September 2025.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history from the court record."}],"effects":[{"label":"reputational_harm_from_false_ai_statements","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629.29.0.pdf","kind":"court_opinion","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Memorandum Opinion and Order, ECF No. 29, filed 14 September 2026; PDF read in full via CourtListener RECAP on 2026-09-15.","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71417738/keene-v-google-llc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Public docket page read on 2026-09-15.","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/14/federal-court-allows-libel-by-ai-claim-brought-by-protagonist-of-apple-tvs-black-bird-series-to-go-forward/","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-15; quotes the opinion.","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/23/from-prison-to-helping-the-fbi-to-an-apple-tv-miniseries-to-google-hallucinated-libel/","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-15; quotes the complaint at removal.","independence_group":"court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["The plaintiff's residence and the locations where the Overviews were generated or viewed are not stated in the inspected records.","No damages figure appears in the inspected records.","The complaint exhibits (screenshots of the Overviews) were not inspected.","The case continues; an amended complaint was due by 13 October 2026."],"geography":{"basis":"The AI Overviews were generated online in response to searches; where they were generated or viewed is not stated. The plaintiff's residence is not stated in the inspected records, and the charter does not infer a country from the court. Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, after removal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the strength of the court's own opinion and docket, read in full, with legal commentary as context. The plaintiff is a public figure who sued under his own name; allegations are attributed to the complaint and the ruling is limited to the pleadings.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The statements at issue appeared in Google's AI Overviews, and the court's opinion recites the allegation that Google attributed them to errors by its artificial intelligence. The screenshots are exhibits to the complaint and were not inspected here; the court accepted the allegations as true for the motion to dismiss only.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Keene v. Google: defamation claim over AI Overviews calling an author a convicted murderer survives dismissal","summary":"An author and television producer, the subject of the Apple TV series 'Black Bird', sued Google, alleging that AI Overviews shown for searches about him in May and June 2025 falsely said he was serving a life sentence without parole, in one version for the murders of three women. He says he notified Google three times and received apologies attributing the statements to its AI, yet similar statements kept appearing. On 14 September 2026 the Northern District of Illinois denied Google's motion to dismiss as to two of the four challenged Overviews and dismissed the other two without prejudice. This was a ruling on the pleadings, not a finding that the allegations were proven.","incidentDate":"2025-05-24","incidentEndDate":"2025-06-27","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-09-23","aiSystem":"Google AI Overviews","aiProduct":"Google AI Overviews","aiCompany":"Google LLC","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiff alleges that false AI-generated statements that he was a convicted murderer serving life without parole were shown to searchers, including family, friends and acquaintances, and continued after he notified Google.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person is the subject of the alleged defamatory statements and the plaintiff (court opinion). Family and acquaintances who saw the statements are not counted as harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629/gov.uscourts.ilnd.486629.29.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Memorandum Opinion and Order, Keene v. Google LLC, No. 25 C 11431 (N.D. Ill. 14 September 2026), ECF No. 29, via CourtListener RECAP","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T03:23:44.732123+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:07.683768+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["defamation","ai-overviews","google","hallucination","lawsuit","reputational-harm"]}]}