{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-18T10:47:44.496Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"lawyer","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":10,"coverage":{"cases":10,"countries":3,"languages":7,"unknownLocation":3,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":3,"minors":0,"coreRelations":4,"contextualRelations":10,"mixedRelations":4,"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":"2026-new-york-federal-court-defaults-client-and-orders-lawyer-to-pay-fees-over-ai-generated-false-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'motion to dismiss that was peppered with false citations'; 'Top alerted the Court to a series of faulty citations'; 'Defendants Top Experience Company LLC (“Top”) and'; 'cited that did not exist, and eight cases that did exist but did not contain the quotes'; 'Once again, his brief contained false citations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In June 2025 the defendant's lawyer filed a brief supporting its motion to dismiss that, a co-defendant's lawyer showed, cited at least thirteen cases that did not exist and eight real cases that did not contain the quoted words; a later response to the court and a proposed reply brief also contained false citations.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings in its sanctions opinion."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'unreported cases located via Google Scholar, Google search, or the AI-assisted platform vLex, and then cite-checking those cases by running the brief through a different AI program'; 'introduced citation errors that he mistook as corrections and thus neither reviewed nor fixed'; 'I used generative AI to confirm that the information that I wrote was correctly referencing the information that I had'; 'The tool he claimed to use was NotebookLM'; 'The Court does not find the second explanation credible'; 'Court finds that explanation extremely difficult to believe'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyer said he located unreported cases through Google Scholar, Google search and the AI-assisted platform vLex, cite-checked the brief by running it through AI programs (vLex or Paxton AI) that he said introduced the errors, and used NotebookLM to review the content of his response; the court did not find his account of how the errors arose credible and found his NotebookLM account extremely difficult to believe.","causal_attribution":"Documented as the lawyer's statements recorded by the court; his account of how the errors arose is his own and the court rejected it in part."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'by submitting false citations to the Court produced by generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) and then lying about their genesis'; 'had acted in bad faith'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court later described the sanctioned conduct as submitting false citations produced by generative AI and then lying about their origin, and recalled its finding that the lawyer acted in bad faith.","causal_attribution":"The court's own characterisation in the 9 October 2026 order."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'by striking Affable’s submissions and entering default judgment against it'; 'nor a client from its attorney’s misdeeds'; 'to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Affable Avenue LLC'; 'Dated: February 5, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Court imposed terminal sanctions on Affable'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 5 February 2026 the court sanctioned the lawyer by striking his client's motion papers and entering default judgment against the client, holding that a client is not excused from its lawyer's misdeeds.","causal_attribution":"The court's order; the court ties the sanction to the false citations."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'then-counsel to Defendant Top Experience Company LLC (“Top”), who had provided substantial assistance to the Court by investigating and reporting'; 'awards his firm $38,877.59'; 'for a total award of $38,877.59'; 'must be made by'; 'within 30 days of this Opinion, unless'; 'Dated: October 9, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 9 October 2026 the court awarded the firm of a co-defendant's former lawyer, who had investigated and reported the false citations, $38,877.59 in fees and costs, payable by the sanctioned lawyer within 30 days.","causal_attribution":"The court's order."}],"effects":[{"label":"client's motion papers struck and default judgment entered against it as a sanction on its lawyer","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"lawyer ordered to pay $38,877.59 in fees and costs","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195.364.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed. ECF 364, 18 pp.","independence_group":"sdny-24-civ-9429-court-orders"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195.227.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed. ECF 227, 33 pp.","independence_group":"sdny-24-civ-9429-court-orders"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which tool generated each false citation; the lawyer's account names several tools and the court rejected parts of it.","Whether the lawyer has paid the award, appealed, or been referred to a disciplinary body; neither order mentions a referral.","The amount of damages to be assessed against the defaulted client."],"geography":{"basis":"The filings were made in, and the sanctions imposed by, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Where the lawyer and the client are based is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's two orders, read in full, record the lawyer's own account of using AI tools to find and check citations, describe the false citations as produced by generative AI, and impose default judgment on his client and a $38,877.59 fee award on him because of them.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The lawyer told the court he found cases through the AI-assisted platform vLex and cite-checked his brief by running it through AI programs (vLex or Paxton AI), which he said introduced the errors, and that he used NotebookLM to review a later submission (communicated_with). The court's 9 October 2026 order describes the sanctioned filings as false citations produced by generative AI. The court read those citations and, because of them, struck the client's papers, entered default judgment against the client and ordered the lawyer to pay fees (informed_decision_about). Which tool generated each false citation is not established.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"New York federal court enters default judgment against a defendant and orders its lawyer to pay $38,877 after false citations it found AI produced","summary":"In a federal trademark suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the court on 5 February 2026 struck a company defendant's motion papers and entered default judgment against it as a sanction on its lawyer, after his filings repeatedly cited nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations. The lawyer said he had found and cite-checked cases with AI tools (vLex and Paxton AI) and used NotebookLM to review a later submission; the court rejected his explanations and found he acted in bad faith. On 9 October 2026 the court described the citations as produced by generative AI and ordered the lawyer to pay $38,877.59 in fees and costs to the firm of a co-defendant's former lawyer, who had reported the false citations to the court.","incidentDate":"2026-02-05","incidentEndDate":"2026-10-09","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-02-05","aiSystem":"AI legal research and cite-checking tools the lawyer said he used (vLex with AI functionality, Paxton AI) and NotebookLM, which he said he used to review his response to the court; the court found the citations were produced by generative AI","aiProduct":"vLex, Paxton AI and NotebookLM (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's orders, the defendant's motion papers were struck and default judgment entered against it as a sanction for its lawyer's filings with false citations, which the court describes as produced by generative AI, and the lawyer was ordered to pay $38,877.59 in fees and costs.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the lawyer, who described his own use of AI tools and was ordered to pay $38,877.59. The client against which default judgment was entered is a company; the people behind it are not described and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-NY","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195/gov.uscourts.nysd.633195.364.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Opinion and Order on fees, ECF 364, 24 Civ. 9429 (9 October 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:05:26.378079+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:05:26.378079+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","new-york","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","default-judgment","attorney-fees"]},{"id":"2026-germany-court-bars-google-ai-mode-answer-falsely-calling-doctor-convicted-sex-offender","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Ende August 2026 wies ihn ein ärztlicher Kollege darauf hin, was passiert, wenn man seinen Namen zusammen mit dem Suchbegriff \"Freistellung\" bei Google eingibt'; 'Der KI-Modus gab eine zusammenhängende Darstellung aus, die wie ein Tatsachenbericht klang.'; 'Ein Gericht hätte ihn wegen sexueller Nötigung zu einer Bewährungsstrafe verurteilt'; 'wäre deshalb freigestellt und gekündigt worden'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At the end of August 2026 a colleague told the physician that searching his name with the word for suspension in Google's AI Mode produced a connected account that read like a factual report: that he had been suspended and dismissed and had received a suspended sentence for sexual coercion.","causal_attribution":"The AI Mode output as described by beck-aktuell from the court decision; the output itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Gegen ihn gab es nie eine Strafanzeige wegen sexueller Nötigung, kein Strafverfahren und keine Verurteilung.'; 'Die KI hatte vielmehr offenbar Informationen über einen anderen früheren leitenden Mitarbeiter derselben Klinik mit seinem Namen verknüpft.'; 'nannten den Namen des beschuldigten Arztes nicht'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"None of the claims concerned him: there was never a criminal complaint, proceeding or conviction against him; the AI apparently linked information about another former senior employee of the same hospital to his name, and the newspaper articles Google linked as sources did not name him.","causal_attribution":"beck-aktuell's account of the case; the court found the statements attributed to him offences that concerned another person (c4)."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Der Mediziner forderte noch Ende August die Löschung dieser Ergebnisse.'; 'Doch Google antwortete, man habe die Beanstandung geprüft und werde keine Maßnahmen einleiten.'; 'die KI-generierten Inhalte blieben abrufbar'; 'Auch eine Abmahnung durch die Kölner Kanzlei Höcker vom selben Tag blieb ohne Ergebnis'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"He asked Google to delete the results at the end of August; Google replied that it had reviewed the complaint and would take no action, and a warning letter from his lawyers the same day had no effect.","causal_attribution":"As reported by beck-aktuell; Google's own statement was not inspected."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Das LG Aachen hat Google Ireland Limited nun per einstweiliger Verfügung untersagt, die falschen Behauptungen weiter über den KI-Modus zu verbreiten (Beschluss vom 24.09.2026 - 8 O 268/26).'; 'indem sie ihm strafrechtliche Vorwürfe und arbeitsrechtliche Konsequenzen zuordneten, die tatsächlich eine andere Person beträfen'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Das Landgericht Aachen untersagte dem Technologiekonzern Google mit Beschluss vom 24. September 2026 (Az. 8 O 268/26), im KI-Modus Falschbehauptungen über einen Arzt zu verbreiten.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"By a decision of 24 September 2026 (8 O 268/26) the Aachen Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction barring Google Ireland Limited from further spreading the false claims through AI Mode, holding that the AI-generated texts violated his personality rights by attributing to him criminal accusations and employment consequences that concerned another person, and that Google is responsible for the answers of its AI search.","causal_attribution":"The court's decision as reported; the decision text itself was not inspected. Both reports relay the same decision."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Die Falschinformationen seien öffentlich sichtbar und für jeden zugänglich.'; 'obwohl sie geeignet seien, den Arzt in seiner beruflichen Ehre und seinem sozialen Ansehen erheblich zu schädigen'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found the false statements publicly visible and capable of seriously damaging his professional honour and social standing, and noted that Google had done nothing to remove them despite his request and the warning letter.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning as reported by beck-aktuell."}],"effects":[{"label":"AI search answer falsely presenting him as convicted of sexual coercion and dismissed","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"false claims left online after Google declined his removal request","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.beck-aktuell.de/heute-im-recht/rechtsprechung/lg-aachen-8o26826-haftung-falsche-ki-aussage-google-stoererin-chefarzt-sexualstraftaeter-2026-10-08","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"de","translation_note":"Read in German on 2026-10-15 (live page, HTTP 200; beck-aktuell, 8 October 2026, with an editorial note of 12 October 2026 that the description of his former post was slightly changed at his lawyer's request). Legal news report of the court's decision; translated by the research agent (an AI), no human translation.","independence_group":"lg-aachen-8-o-268-26"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.ad-hoc-news.de/wissenschaft/google-ki-im-visier-landgericht-aachen-untersagt-falsche-arztbehauptung/70304380","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"de","translation_note":"Read in German on 2026-10-15 (live page, HTTP 200; ad-hoc-news.de, 12 October 2026). A round-up article whose Aachen paragraph restates the decision's date, file number and legal basis; it adds no independent reporting. Translated by the research agent (an AI).","independence_group":"lg-aachen-8-o-268-26"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice","privacy"],"unknowns":["The exact wording of the AI Mode answer and how many people saw it.","Whether Google has complied, objected or appealed; the decision is an interim injunction issued without a hearing.","Whether the false answer affected his employment or professional standing in practice; he left the chief-physician post in summer 2026 for reasons not connected in any source to the AI answer.","When AI Mode first produced the answer: the end of August 2026 is when a colleague pointed it out, and incident_date records that month."],"geography":{"basis":"beck-aktuell says he worked as a chief physician at a German hospital (an einem deutschen Klinikum) and that the Aachen Regional Court issued the injunction, so the court country is DE and the affected person's country is DE by his work at a German hospital. No source says where the searches that displayed the answer were made, so the event country stays unknown.","court_countries":["DE"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["DE"]},"publication":{"basis":"A German court issued an injunction against Google after its AI Mode attributed another person's sexual-coercion conviction and dismissal to a physician, searched by name, who had no such record, and Google refused his removal request. Contextual relation made_claim_about; the case adds a court injunction holding the search provider responsible for its AI answer. The physician is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Google's AI Mode itself generated the statements: according to beck-aktuell's report of the decision, a search for his name with the word for suspension produced a connected account attributing a conviction for sexual coercion and a dismissal to him, apparently by linking facts about another former employee of the same hospital to his name, while the linked source articles did not name him. The Aachen Regional Court held that these AI-generated texts violated his personality rights and that Google is responsible for them. The answer was not inspected directly; it is known through the reported decision.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"German court bars Google from repeating an AI Mode answer that falsely called a doctor a convicted sex offender","summary":"In late August 2026 a colleague told a German physician, until that summer a chief physician at a hospital, that searching his name with the word for suspension in Google's AI Mode produced what read like a factual report: that he had been suspended and dismissed and had received a suspended sentence for sexual coercion. According to legal news site beck-aktuell, none of it concerned him; the AI had apparently attached facts about another former senior employee of the same hospital to his name, and the newspaper articles it linked as sources did not name him. Google said it had reviewed his complaint and would take no action, and a lawyer's warning letter also failed. On 24 September 2026 the Aachen Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction (8 O 268/26) barring Google Ireland Limited from spreading the claims through AI Mode, finding that they violated his personality rights and that Google is responsible for its AI search answers.","incidentDate":"2026-08-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-08","aiSystem":"Google Search AI Mode (KI-Modus), which generated an answer about the physician when his name was searched","aiProduct":"Google AI Mode","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Google's AI Mode answered searches for a physician's name with a false account that he had been convicted of sexual coercion and dismissed; Google declined to remove it until a court ordered it to stop.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"outward","causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the physician about whom AI Mode made the false claims and who obtained the injunction.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"DE","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.beck-aktuell.de/heute-im-recht/rechtsprechung/lg-aachen-8o26826-haftung-falsche-ki-aussage-google-stoererin-chefarzt-sexualstraftaeter-2026-10-08","primarySourceLabel":"beck-aktuell, 8 October 2026: Google muss KI-Halluzination löschen (German)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:20:24.866709+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:20:24.866709+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["google","ai-mode","defamation","false-accusation","court-injunction","germany"]},{"id":"2025-oregon-federal-court-dismisses-family-plaintiffs-claims-after-briefs-with-ai-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The issue before the Court is the appropriate sanctions for Plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence'; 'Plaintiffs filed three briefs containing citations to fifteen non-existent cases and fabricated quotations falsely attributed to eight legitimate authorities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs filed three summary-judgment briefs citing fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations attributed to eight real authorities, and the court framed its sanctions as being for the plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'[t]he inclusion of inaccurate citations was inadvertent and the result of reliance on an automated legal citation tool'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs told the court the inaccurate citations were inadvertent and resulted from reliance on an automated legal citation tool.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs' filing as quoted by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Court finds that Plaintiffs share responsibility with'; 'for the submission of fifteen non-existent cases and eight fabricated quotations'; 'is a serial self-represented litigator who was likely the person responsible for using artificial intelligence to draft the summary judgment briefs in this case'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that the plaintiffs shared responsibility with their lead lawyer and that one plaintiff, a serial self-represented litigator, was likely the person responsible for using AI to draft the briefs.","causal_attribution":"A court finding of likelihood on unrebutted circumstantial evidence; the drafter's AI use is not otherwise established."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'STRICKEN without leave to refile'; 'to pay the Clerk of the Court $15,500 within 30'; 'Defendants are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney' ; 'Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED with'; 'Local Rules provides an additional basis for terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs' claims.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court struck the briefs without leave to refile, ordered the lead lawyer to pay $15,500 to the Clerk, awarded the defendants reasonable fees and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice; it found the plaintiffs' continual violations of the Local Rules an additional basis for that dismissal.","causal_attribution":"Established by the order."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'finds the requested amount of $94,704.38 reasonable'; 'is ORDERED to pay Defendants 15% of that award, $14,205.66'; 'pay Defendants the remaining 85%'; '$80,498.72 within thirty (30) days'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In March 2026 the court found fees of $94,704.38 reasonable and ordered local counsel to pay 15% ($14,205.66) and the lead lawyer 85% ($80,498.72).","causal_attribution":"Established by the fees order."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Defendants' unopposed Motion for Partial Summary'; 'summary judgment on their eighth counterclaim for breach of contract and ordered specific performance of the inheritance contract'; 'Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 228) is DENIED.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In June 2026 the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its grant of the defendants' unopposed motion for partial summary judgment, which had awarded specific performance of an inheritance contract on a breach-of-contract counterclaim.","causal_attribution":"Established by the reconsideration order; the orders do not say the counterclaim outcome resulted from the AI sanction."}],"effects":[{"label":"family plaintiffs' claims dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for briefs with AI-fabricated citations","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"lead lawyer fined $15,500 and two lawyers ordered to pay $94,704.38 in fees","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.215.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.225.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, pdftotext); the background and fee-allocation sections were inspected.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.233.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, pdftotext); five-page order read in full.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used; the orders name none.","Who drafted the briefs: the court's finding is one of likelihood, and the plaintiffs gave no explanation.","Whether the fine and fees were paid, and the outcome of the order sent to the Oregon State Bar and of a later show-cause order to the lead lawyer.","Whether the counterclaim ruling was affected by the striking of the plaintiffs' briefs."],"geography":{"basis":"The briefs were filed in and the sanctions imposed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Where the briefs were drafted and where the parties live are not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's own orders establish that it dismissed the family plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and sanctioned their lawyers for briefs citing nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations, which the court attributes to the plaintiffs' misuse of generative AI and finds one plaintiff likely drafted with AI. The three orders were read.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's 12 December 2025 order describes the sanctions as being for the plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence, finds that three briefs cited fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations, records the plaintiffs' statement that the citations resulted from reliance on an automated legal citation tool, and finds that one plaintiff was likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs (communicated_with). The AI output reached the court in those briefs, and the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and sanctioned their lawyers because of it (informed_decision_about). No product is named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Oregon federal court dismisses family plaintiffs' claims and fines their lawyer after briefs cited 15 nonexistent cases it attributes to generative AI misuse","summary":"On 12 December 2025 the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed with prejudice the claims of plaintiffs in a family dispute over their late mother's estate and family property, as a sanction for what the court called their misuse of generative artificial intelligence, and found their continual violations of the court's Local Rules an additional basis for the dismissal. Three of the plaintiffs' summary-judgment briefs cited fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations attributed to eight real authorities. The plaintiffs had said the inaccurate citations came from reliance on an automated legal citation tool. The court found that the plaintiffs shared responsibility with their lead lawyer and that one plaintiff, a frequent self-represented litigant, was likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs. It struck the briefs, ordered the lead lawyer to pay $15,500 to the court and awarded the defendants their fees. In March 2026 it set those fees at $94,704.38, ordering the lead lawyer to pay 85% and local counsel 15%. In June 2026 it denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider a later ruling for the defendants on a counterclaim.","incidentDate":"2025-01-31","incidentEndDate":"2025-12-12","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-12-12","aiSystem":"Generative AI used to draft summary-judgment briefs, according to the court; the plaintiffs described it as an automated legal citation tool. No product is named in the orders","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's orders, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice because their briefs cited nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations that the court attributes to misuse of generative AI, which it found one plaintiff likely used to draft them; the lead lawyer was fined $15,500 and the two lawyers were ordered to pay $94,704.38 in fees.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Three people counted from the orders: the individual plaintiff whose claims were dismissed (found likely to have drafted the briefs with AI, so that AI use is a finding of likelihood and she is not counted as an established user), the lead lawyer (fined and ordered to pay 85% of fees) and local counsel (ordered to pay 15% of fees). The estate whose claim was also dismissed has beneficiaries the orders do not count; the LLC plaintiff is not a person.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-OR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.215.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Opinion and Order, ECF 215, case 1:21-cv-00157 (12 December 2025)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:05:45.14301+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:05:45.14301+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","oregon","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","claims-dismissed","client-responsibility"]},{"id":"2026-alabama-supreme-court-dismisses-family-trust-appeal-over-lawyer-ai-hallucinated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'filed briefs in this appeal that contain numerous invalid, inaccurate, and/or irrelevant citations to legal authorities'; 'They appear to be artificial-intelligence (\"AI\") \"hallucinations,\" i.e., fake authorities created by an AI system'; 'Most of the legal authorities in the briefs are misquoted or nonexistent'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appellants' lawyer filed briefs whose citations the court found numerous, invalid, inaccurate or irrelevant, most of them misquoted or nonexistent, and which the court said appear to be AI hallucinations.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'first use of an AI research tool that summarized commentary not readily available through standard legal databases'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In a reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, the lawyer attributed two misquotations to an AI research tool that summarised commentary.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's statement as quoted in the opinion."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall admitted that many of the legal authorities in his briefs do not exist and that he improperly used AI to obtain those authorities'; 'Hall also informed the Court that he had self-reported his actions to the Alabama State Bar'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At the 4 February 2026 show-cause hearing the lawyer admitted that many authorities in his briefs did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them, and said he had self-reported to the Alabama State Bar.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the hearing."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Because those briefs are grossly deficient under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal'; 'the dismissal of this appeal is imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts before us'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court dismissed the appeal because the briefs were grossly deficient, and said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall is hereby ordered to pay attorney fees and costs'; 'in the amount of $17,200'; 'Hall is ordered to pay double costs'; 'We also refer Hall to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court ordered the lawyer to pay $17,200 in attorney fees and costs and double costs of the appeal, and referred him to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'SELLERS, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I do not agree that dismissal of the appeal is appropriate as a sanction for the conduct of a lawyer'; 'I would affirm the judgment of the Mobile Circuit'; 'MENDHEIM, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I concur in the dismissal of this appeal'; 'His representation on appeal was of no benefit to them'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Justice Sellers, concurring in part and dissenting in part, disagreed that dismissal was an appropriate sanction for a lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits; Justice Mendheim, who concurred in the dismissal, wrote that the lawyer's representation on appeal was of no benefit to the clients.","causal_attribution":"Two separate opinions in the same record; neither is the court's holding."}],"effects":[{"label":"two appellants' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on AI-obtained authorities that were fake or misquoted","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 and double costs, barred from filing alone in the court and referred to the state bar","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from CourtListener's archived copy of this court PDF (storage.courtlistener.com, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext) because the court portal URL returned HTTP 403 to the agent; no translation was needed.","independence_group":"alabama-supreme-court-sc-2025-0106"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the lawyer used; the opinion names none.","Whether the dismissal changed the clients' substantive position; the trial court's summary judgment stands, the main opinion does not decide the merits, and one justice would have affirmed the judgment.","The outcome of the Alabama State Bar referral."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal was decided by the Supreme Court of Alabama on appeal from the Mobile Circuit Court. The appellants' residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the Supreme Court of Alabama's opinion establishes that it dismissed two appellants' appeal as a sanction after their lawyer filed briefs built on fabricated authorities that he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI, and that it sanctioned the lawyer and referred him to the state bar. The opinion was read in full.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found the briefs' authorities appeared to be AI hallucinations, the lawyer admitted at the show-cause hearing that he had improperly used AI to obtain authorities that do not exist, and his reply-brief footnote quoted by the court says an AI research tool misattributed quotations. The AI output reached the court through the briefs, and the court dismissed the clients' appeal because those briefs rested on fabricated authorities (informed_decision_about for the clients); the lawyer received the fabricated output from the tool (communicated_with) and was sanctioned.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Alabama Supreme Court dismisses two siblings' family-trust appeal as a sanction after their lawyer admits using AI that produced fake citations","summary":"On 24 April 2026 the Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed an appeal by two siblings in a family dispute over living trusts because their lawyer, W. Perry Hall, had filed briefs in which most of the legal authorities were misquoted or did not exist. The court said they appeared to be AI hallucinations, and at a show-cause hearing in February 2026 Hall admitted that many authorities did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them. The court ordered Hall to pay the opposing party's fees and costs of $17,200 and double appeal costs, barred him from filing in the court without a co-signing attorney and referred him to the Alabama State Bar. It said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts. One justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part, objected to dismissing the appeal as a sanction for the lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the judgment against the clients on the merits.","incidentDate":"2026-04-24","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-04-24","aiSystem":"An AI research tool that, according to the lawyer's reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, summarised legal commentary and misattributed quotations; the lawyer admitted using AI to obtain authorities that do not exist. No product is named in the opinion","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI research tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Supreme Court of Alabama, the siblings' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on authorities that were misquoted or did not exist, which he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI; the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 in fees and costs plus double appeal costs and was referred to the state bar.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One AI user: the appellate lawyer, sanctioned and referred to the bar. Two other people: the two appellants whose appeal was dismissed. The appellee, whose fees were reimbursed, is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","primarySourceLabel":"Supreme Court of Alabama, opinion in SC-2025-0106 (released 24 April 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","alabama","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","appeal-dismissed"]},{"id":"2026-ninth-circuit-immigration-lawyers-suspended-over-ai-hallucinated-citations-board-reciprocal-suspension","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sethi filed an opening brief in this case with multiple fabricated citations and quotations'; 'Sethi cited two cases that do not exist and never existed'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The opening brief filed for the asylum petitioners and signed by Sethi cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to real opinions that do not contain them.","causal_attribution":"The court's own finding in its order."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'to which Rounds said that AI “was not used.”'; 'Rounds finally conceded that it was “possible” that AI might have been used by the individual who drafted the briefs'; 'Sethi Law Group employs law school graduates, who are not yet licensed attorneys, to write briefs'; 'that no licensed attorney read the cases cited by the unlicensed brief writer'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At oral argument Rounds said AI was not used and later conceded it was possible that the person who drafted the briefs had used AI; the drafter was an unlicensed law graduate whose citations no licensed attorney read.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the oral argument and of the attorneys' response."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'that the errors were the product of unauthorized AI use by their Brief Writers and a failure to cite check'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Responding to the order to show cause, the attorneys conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by their brief writers and a failure to check citations.","causal_attribution":"The attorneys' concession as recorded by the court; no AI tool, prompt or output was identified."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Neither of them suspected the use of generative AI because the Firm prohibited its use and required the Brief Writers to check all their citations'; 'it is beyond belief that he knew for a fact that it was not used'; 'is owed to this repeated failure of candor'; 'We do not sanction Sethi and Rounds for the simple fact that they or'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The attorneys said that at the time of the motion to correct they did not suspect AI because the firm prohibited its use; the court found that Rounds could not have known AI was not used, said it was not sanctioning AI use as such, and attributed the severity of discipline to their repeated failure of candour.","causal_attribution":"The attorneys' explanation and the court's findings, both from the order."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sethi and Rounds are each personally sanctioned in the amount of $2,500'; 'Sethi and Rounds are hereby suspended from practice before this Court for a period of six months starting ten days after this Order is filed'; 'provide a copy of this Order to their clients'; 'serve a copy of this Order on the State Bar of California'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Ninth Circuit fined each attorney $2,500, suspended both from practice before the court for six months, ordered them to give the order to their clients in every pending case, and directed service of the order on the State Bar of California.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's order."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Board hereby suspends the respondent from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and DHS for 6 months, effective June 13, 2026.'; 'On July 1, 2026, the Board granted the Joint Petition for Immediate Suspension.'; 'previously issued unpublished on September 15, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Board of Immigration Appeals suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and DHS for six months, effective 13 June 2026, after granting an immediate suspension on 1 July 2026, and designated the decision as precedent after first issuing it unpublished on 15 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"Established by the Board's decision."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'the respondent contests the sufficiency of the evidence that he knew that certain errors in his filings were caused by the use of artificial intelligence'; 'the respondent’s claims of hardship to his clients are conclusory'; 'the application of our rules of attorney discipline to misconduct related to the use of AI is not an “outlier penalty,” as the respondent claims'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Before the Board, Sethi disputed that he knew AI had been used and argued that suspension would harm his clients and was an outlier penalty for AI-related misconduct; the Board rejected these arguments.","causal_attribution":"The respondent's arguments and the Board's ruling as stated in the decision."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The petition for review, which we granted'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court granted the asylum petitioners' petition for review.","causal_attribution":"The court's statement; it does not address any effect of the sanctions on the clients."}],"effects":[{"label":"two attorneys were fined and suspended from practice before a federal appeals court, and one was suspended from immigration practice, over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and false statements about them","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/03/24-4790.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from the court's own site (HTTP 200, PDF text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"ninth-circuit-order-24-4790"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463666/dl?inline","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from the court's own site (HTTP 200, PDF text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"bia-matter-of-sethi"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the brief writers used; the order records only the attorneys' concession that AI use was probable.","Whether the State Bar of California opened proceedings after the referral.","Whether the suspensions affected the attorneys' clients; the Board found the hardship claims conclusory and no source describes a harmed client.","The date the opening brief was filed; the inspected sources do not state it."],"geography":{"basis":"The briefs were filed in and sanctioned by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the reciprocal suspension was imposed by the US Board of Immigration Appeals; the order describes the firm as based in Orange County, California. The attorneys' residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a court decision about two attorneys informed by AI-generated fabricated authorities in their briefs: the Ninth Circuit's order fines and suspends two attorneys for filing briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and for repeatedly denying the AI source, and the Board of Immigration Appeals imposes a reciprocal suspension on one of them. Both records were read in full from the courts' own sites.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is two courts' response to AI use in filings: the Ninth Circuit order describes briefs with nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations, records the attorneys' concession that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's brief writers, and imposes fines and a six-month suspension for filing them and for repeatedly denying the AI source; the Board of Immigration Appeals imposed a reciprocal suspension on that basis. The court read the fabricated authorities in the briefs, identified them and based its discipline of the two attorneys on filing them and on their statements about their source, so the AI output informed a decision about them (informed_decision_about); no tool is named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Ninth Circuit fines and suspends two immigration lawyers over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and denials of AI use; immigration board follows","summary":"On 3 June 2026 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit fined immigration attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds $2,500 each and suspended both from practice before the court for six months. Briefs filed in an asylum petition for review cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to opinions that do not contain them. In a motion to correct, the attorneys called the errors typographical, and at oral argument Rounds twice said AI was not used. In their response to the court's order to show cause, they conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's unlicensed brief writers and a failure to check citations. The court said the suspension was owed to their repeated failure of candour. The Board of Immigration Appeals then suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security for six months, effective 13 June 2026, and designated that decision as a precedent on 1 October 2026.","incidentDate":"2026-06-03","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-06-03","aiSystem":"Generative AI that, according to the attorneys' concession recorded by the Ninth Circuit, the firm's unlicensed brief writers probably used against firm policy; no tool is named in the order or the Board's decision","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Ninth Circuit's order, both attorneys were fined $2,500 and suspended from practice before the court for six months over briefs whose AI-hallucinated citations they had denied were AI errors; according to the Board of Immigration Appeals, one of them was then suspended from practice before the immigration courts, the Board and DHS for six months.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two attorneys, each named in the Ninth Circuit order as fined and suspended; the Board's reciprocal suspension concerns one of them. The asylum applicants are not counted: the court granted their petition for review and no source reports harm to them.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/03/24-4790.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, order in No. 24-4790 (3 June 2026): attorney discipline over AI-hallucinated citations","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:02:36.457192+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:02:36.457192+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","legal-profession","sanction","suspension","hallucinated-citations","immigration"]},{"id":"2025-negrar-italy-google-ai-overview-reported-false-death-notice-orthopedics-chief","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Interrogando il motore di ricerca il sistema ha infatti generato l’output secondo cui Zorzi sarebbe deceduto.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"tramite la funzionalità dell’intelligenza artificiale di Google denominata “AI Overwiew”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Il professor Zorzi sta bene, continua a dirigere il reparto di Ortopedia","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Interrogando il motore di ricerca il sistema ha generato l'output sbagliato.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Un luminare del ginocchio che però secondo l’intelligenza artificiale è passato a miglior vita.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The hospital states that, when the search engine was queried, Google's AI Overview feature generated an output saying that surgeon Claudio Zorzi had died, and that Zorzi is alive and still directs the department and operates.","causal_attribution":"The sources report the connection between the AI output and the reported consequence; no court, regulator or independent finding of causation was inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"scambiato per l’omonimo medico di famiglia","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"verosimilmente originato da un caso di omonimia","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"effettivamente deceduto era un medico di medicina generale","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The hospital and the press attribute the error to confusion with a homonymous general practitioner who died; Il Mattino states that a general practitioner of the same name did die.","causal_attribution":"The hospital says the error was 'verosimilmente' (probably) caused by a homonym. No source shows how the AI system produced the output."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"La notizia si era diffusa ad aprile scorso","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"risale allo scorso aprile","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"puntualmente viene riproposta in rete. È successo lo scorso settembre, succede anche adesso.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Il Mattino and Adnkronos report that the false news of the surgeon's death first spread in April (2025, by their October 2025 publication dates) and, according to Il Mattino, kept reappearing online despite a denial, including in September.","causal_attribution":"Adnkronos ties the April false news to Google's AI Overview in its own text. The hospital note relayed by Sanità Informazione says only that the false news spread 'di recente', and Il Mattino dates the 'death' to April without saying which service showed it. No source dates an AI Overview output."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Se la gente pensa che io sia morto, non mi cerca.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"si era pure rivolto alla Polizia postale per far togliere l’annuncio che lo dava per morto","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"manifestamente erronea e gravemente lesiva dell’immagine e della reputazione dell’ospedale e del suo primario Claudio Zorzi","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Il Mattino quotes Zorzi as saying he is alive and uncomfortable because people who think he is dead do not look for him, and reports that he turned to the postal police to have the notice removed. The hospital describes the false content as seriously damaging to its image and to the reputation of the department head.","causal_attribution":"The statements are attributed to Zorzi and the hospital by Il Mattino, and the place and date of the quotes are not stated. No loss of patients is reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ha dunque notificato, attraverso i suoi legali, un atto di diffida e messa in mora formale nei confronti di Google","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"L’ospedale si riserva inoltre ogni possibilità di agire in separata sede per ottenere risarcimento","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"a provvedere all’immediata e definitiva rettifica e cancellazione della falsa notizia del decesso del professor Zorzi da ogni servizio Google","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"formalmente intimato e diffidato Google a provvedere all'immediata e definitiva rettifica e cancellazione","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On or before 15 October 2025 the hospital, through its lawyers, served Google with a formal cease-and-desist and default notice demanding correction and deletion of the false death notice from all Google services including AI Overview, search results and cached pages, and reserved court action and a damages claim.","causal_attribution":"The hospital's own announcement of its own action, relayed by three outlets that share one chain; the notice itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"in provincia di Verona","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"IRCCS Sacro Cuore-Don Calabria di Negrar (Verona)","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The hospital is located in Negrar, in the province of Verona.","causal_attribution":"Location statement only."}],"effects":[{"label":"Named surgeon reported as dead by a search-engine AI summary while alive and practising","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Reported reputational harm and discomfort that people who think the surgeon is dead do not look for him","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.sanitainformazione.it/lirccs-di-negrar-diffida-google-per-la-falsa-notizia-sulla-morte-del-primario-claudio-zorzi/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"it","translation_note":"Italian original read directly by the reviewer (machine-assisted reading, no human translator).","independence_group":"irccs-negrar-note"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.ilmattino.it/primopiano/cronaca/claudio_zorzi_morto_ortopedia_falso_ospedale_diffida_google-9130583.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"it","translation_note":"Italian original read directly (machine-assisted reading, no human translator). The page is marked for premium subscribers; its saved text runs to the closing copyright line.","independence_group":"il-mattino-own-reporting-and-irccs-note"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://comunicazioneitaliana.it/news/53df45ea0d4a52772c315ac4521d4da6","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"it","translation_note":"Adnkronos wire text republished by a communications site. Italian original read directly (machine-assisted reading, no human translator).","independence_group":"irccs-negrar-note"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.salutextutti.it/fake-news-sulla-morte-del-primario-di-ortopedia-allirccs-di-negrar-scatta-la-diffida-a-google/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"it","translation_note":"Italian original read directly (machine-assisted reading, no human translator). This rewrite adds statements that conflict with the other sources on dates and is used only for the location of the hospital.","independence_group":"irccs-negrar-note"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["health","work"],"unknowns":["The AI Overview output was not inspected and no screenshot is described in the sources. No source dates an AI Overview output: the sources date the false news to April (year not printed, read as 2025 from the October 2025 article dates), and Adnkronos alone ties the April news to AI Overview.","Whether the hospital's April-to-October timeline concerns the AI Overview or other web pages is not settled. Salutextutti says the news 'emerged on 15 October 2025' and 'in April 2025', which is inconsistent, so that outlet is used only for the hospital location.","No Google response, correction or removal is reported in the inspected sources.","Il Mattino says the hospital explained 'un mese fa' (about a month before 16 October 2025) that its surgeon was in good health, and that the hospital also published a post saying he was not dead. The date of the post is not stated.","Where and when Zorzi's quoted statements were made is not stated. The Il Mattino quote about patients may come from an earlier interview.","No loss of patients, income or other concrete consequence beyond the reported reputational damage and the police report is described.","Il Mattino is marked for premium subscribers. The saved text runs to the closing '© RIPRODUZIONE RISERVATA' line with no mid-word break and is treated as the whole article, although a paywall could hide text the page did not show."],"geography":{"basis":"Sanità Informazione and Salutextutti place the surgeon's hospital in Negrar, in the province of Verona. Where searchers entered the queries is not stated, so no event country is recorded and no country is inferred from the language or the outlets.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["IT"]},"publication":{"basis":"Four Italian reports read (Il Mattino is marked for premium subscribers; its saved text is complete to the closing copyright line). Three (Sanità Informazione, Adnkronos, Salutextutti) relay the hospital's note of 15 October 2025 and are one reporting chain. Il Mattino adds its own reporting with quotes from the surgeon and background on the homonym. The surgeon is named because his hospital named him in its own public note and post and because Il Mattino quotes him by name (for example: 'Sono vivo, sano e vegeto, perfettamente efficiente'). The AI Overview output was not inspected, so the account is reported, and the date is the month in which the press says the false news spread.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The hospital's note, relayed by Sanità Informazione, Adnkronos and others, says the system generated the output that the surgeon had died. Il Mattino writes that 'according to the artificial intelligence' the surgeon had died. The AI Overview output was not inspected.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Google AI Overview reportedly states that an orthopedic surgeon in Negrar is dead after a homonym's death","summary":"Italian outlets report that Google's AI Overview feature told searchers that Claudio Zorzi, head of orthopedics and traumatology at the IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria hospital in Negrar (Verona), had died. According to the hospital, the surgeon is alive and operating, and the error probably came from confusion with a general practitioner of the same name who died. The false news is reported to have circulated since April 2025 and to have recurred. Zorzi said he felt uncomfortable because people who think he is dead do not look for him, and he reported the notice to the postal police. On 15 October 2025 the hospital served Google, through its lawyers, with a formal cease-and-desist and default notice and reserved a damages claim. No Google response was found. The AI Overview output itself was not inspected.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-10-15","aiSystem":"AI Overviews (Google Search)","aiProduct":"Google AI Overviews","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The hospital describes the false death notice as seriously damaging to the image and reputation of the hospital and its department head. Zorzi says he is uncomfortable because people who think he is dead do not look for him, and he asked the postal police to have the notice removed (his statements as quoted by Il Mattino). No loss of patients or income is reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the surgeon named as dead. The hospital is an organisation and is not counted. The doctor who actually died and that doctor's family are not reported as harmed by the AI output and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.sanitainformazione.it/lirccs-di-negrar-diffida-google-per-la-falsa-notizia-sulla-morte-del-primario-claudio-zorzi/","primarySourceLabel":"Sanità Informazione: L'IRCCS di Negrar diffida Google per la falsa notizia sulla morte del primario Claudio Zorzi","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T14:02:31.994209+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:11.195309+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-us-yale-law-scholar-suspended-after-ai-empowered-news-site-article","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Last week, though, she was abruptly barred from Yale’s campus in New Haven, Conn., and placed on administrative leave.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Yale officials cited the reason as allegations that she was tied to entities subject to U.S. sanctions.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"on administrative leave last week and barred her from campus.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Yale placed the scholar on administrative leave and barred the scholar from campus in early March 2025, after allegations that the scholar was tied to entities subject to US sanctions.","causal_attribution":"The New York Times is the origin. Inside Higher Ed relays it. Yale's own statement to The National is a separate party statement (claim c8). The leave letter and the exact date were not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The decision came three days after a news site, powered at least in part by artificial intelligence, published a story about","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The news site, Jewish Onliner, said that the scholar was connected to Samidoun","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"prompted by allegations on a lesser-known, largely AI-powered news site called Jewish Onliner","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Yale's decision came three days after a news site described as powered at least in part by artificial intelligence published a story on the scholar's connections to Samidoun. Inside Higher Ed and Middle East Eye identify the site as Jewish Onliner.","causal_attribution":"The New York Times states the sequence and does not name the site in the inspected extract. The article date and Yale's internal reasoning are not documented in the inspected sources."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"“The initial email from the general counsel had specifically linked to the Jewish Onliner article and said that was the trigger of the investigation, so there's no dispute about that,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"I received the email notifying us from Yale's general counsel that she had been put on administrative leave and on the grounds that we had failed to cooperate with their investigation, which was ridiculous,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The scholar's lawyer says Yale's general counsel wrote that the Jewish Onliner article was the trigger of the investigation, and that Yale later placed the scholar on leave on the ground that, in the lawyer's words, 'we' (the scholar and the lawyer) had failed to cooperate with its investigation.","causal_attribution":"Single account by the scholar's lawyer as relayed by Middle East Eye. The Yale email was not inspected."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Jewish Onliner describes itself as “your online hub for insights, investigations, data and exposes about issues impacting the Jewish community. Empowered by AI capabilities\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"While AI plays a significant role in enhancing and accelerating our work and content, we want to emphasise that it’s only a tool.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"each person handles every part of a project: conducting OSINT [open source intelligence] research, analyzing the findings, and writing the piece. AI tools also play a significant role in enhancing and accelerating the work","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"articles are ultimately done by the site's human fact-checking team.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"The organization told the Times that humans, not AI, make the final edits on stories.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The site describes itself as empowered by AI. A person affiliated with the site says AI tools play a significant role and that each team member does the research, analysis and writing. The site's email to The National and its statement to the Times, as relayed by Inside Higher Ed, say humans fact-check content and make the final edits.","causal_attribution":"These are the site operators' own statements (emails to The National and to JTA, and a statement to the New York Times). How AI was used in the article about the scholar is not documented, and the JTA statement describes human research and writing."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"“I am not a member of any organization that would constitute a violation of U.S. law.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"told the Times that she’s not part “of any organization that would constitute a violation of U.S. law.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The scholar told the New York Times of not being a member of any organization that would constitute a violation of US law.","causal_attribution":"The scholar's own statement as quoted by Gizmodo and as paraphrased by Inside Higher Ed, which attributes it to a Times interview. The Times interview text beyond the extract was not inspected."},{"id":"c6","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"said she is not a member of Samidoun","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"has yet to explicitly deny her membership in Samidoun.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The scholar's lawyer says the scholar is not a member of Samidoun, and the site says the scholar has yet to explicitly deny membership.","causal_attribution":"Both positions are party statements. The inspected sources do not verify membership either way, and the site's underlying evidence (appearances on panels at Samidoun-sponsored events per the New York Times) was not inspected."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"had been enduring online harassment ever since the Jewish Onliner published its article.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"and Yale were reportedly the subject of intense harassment after Jewish Onliner published the article","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The scholar was reportedly subjected to online harassment after the article was published.","causal_attribution":"Lawyer's account relayed by Middle East Eye and an unsourced 'reportedly' statement in Gizmodo. The harassment itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In response to allegations about potential unlawful conduct, the appropriate process is to place an employee on a temporary administrative leave while a review is conducted to understand the facts of the matter.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"short-term position as an associate research scholar with the LPE Project expires next month.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"A Yale Law School representative said placing an employee on temporary administrative leave while a review is conducted is the appropriate process after allegations of potential unlawful conduct, and that the scholar's short-term position was due to expire the month after the statement.","causal_attribution":"Yale Law School's own statement as quoted by The National. The statement date is not given, so the expiry month is not established, and the effect of the leave on the scholar's employment is not reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"Administrative leave and campus ban after an AI-empowered news site article linked the scholar to a sanctioned group","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/us/yale-suspends-scholar-terrorism.html","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-report"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2025/03/13/ai-empowered-site-accuses-yale-scholar-terrorism-connection","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-report"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://gizmodo.com/yale-suspends-palestine-activist-after-ai-article-linked-her-to-terrorism-2000575148","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-report"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/muslim-scholar-international-law-barred-yale-university-after-ai-powered-terrorism-accusation","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"scholar-lawyer-account"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.thenationalnews.com/future/technology/2025/03/26/ai-powered-jewish-onliner-helyeh-doutaghi/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"the-national-statements"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/all-news/article-848011","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"site-own-statements"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","education","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The New York Times article was read only as a preview extract (a Wayback capture of about 3,000 characters ending at the paywall); passages beyond it were not seen.","The date the Jewish Onliner article was published and the exact date of Yale's leave decision are not stated in the inspected sources, so the incident date is given at month precision.","Which statements in the article, if any, were generated or drafted by AI, and whether any AI error contributed, is unknown.","The Jewish Onliner article itself was not inspected.","The National quotes a Yale Law School statement that the scholar's short-term position expires 'next month'. The statement date is not given, and the outcome of the investigation and any effect on the scholar's employment are not reported.","A person affiliated with the site says each team member does the research, analysis and writing, so the extent of AI use in the article about the scholar is unknown.","Whether the scholar was later reinstated, or how Yale's investigation concluded, is not covered by the inspected sources."],"geography":{"basis":"The New York Times places the barred campus in New Haven, Conn. The scholar's residence or nationality, the site operators' location and any court are not used.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Six public news reports were read. The New York Times original is cited from a preview extract only. Claims are attributed and left at reported or disputed status because the leave letter, the article and Yale's statements were not inspected beyond press quotations. The scholar is not named in any public field.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The New York Times describes the site as 'powered at least in part by artificial intelligence', the site describes itself as empowered by AI capabilities, and a person affiliated with the site says AI tools play a significant role in its work and humans fact-check. A person affiliated with the site also says each team member does the research, analysis and writing, and the inspected sources do not show that AI produced the article about the scholar.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Yale Law School scholar placed on leave and barred from campus after article on an AI-empowered news site linked the scholar to a sanctioned group","summary":"In March 2025 Yale placed a Yale Law School scholar, who was deputy director of a Yale Law School project, on administrative leave and barred the scholar from campus. The New York Times reports the decision came three days after a news site described as powered at least in part by artificial intelligence published a story on the scholar's connections to Samidoun, a group on a US sanctions list. Inside Higher Ed and Middle East Eye identify the site as Jewish Onliner. The scholar's lawyer says Yale's general counsel named the article as the trigger of the investigation. The scholar told the Times of not being a member of any organization that would violate US law, and the lawyer says the scholar is not a member of Samidoun. A Yale Law School representative told The National that placing an employee on temporary administrative leave while a review is conducted is the appropriate process and that the scholar's short-term position was due to expire the following month. The site says humans fact-check and that AI tools play a significant role in its work. The inspected sources do not show that AI produced the article.","incidentDate":"2025-03-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-03-12","aiSystem":"Jewish Onliner (Substack news site describing itself as empowered by AI capabilities; models and tools not identified in the inspected sources)","aiProduct":"Jewish Onliner (suspected)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The New York Times reports the scholar was barred from Yale's campus and placed on administrative leave, and the scholar's lawyer told Middle East Eye the article was named as the trigger of Yale's investigation, that the scholar suffered online harassment and that Yale should restore the scholar's reputation.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One scholar reported placed on leave and barred from campus. Yale, the site's other subjects and the harassers are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/us/yale-suspends-scholar-terrorism.html","primarySourceLabel":"The New York Times (12 Mar 2025), preview extract","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:55.093356+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.811349+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-lacey-insurance-discovery-relief-denied-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 8 para 20: 'I have struck, and decline to'; 'consider, any of the supplemental briefs'; 'I decline to award any of the discovery relief'; p. 7 para 17: 'The initial, undisclosed use of AI products to'; 'generate the first draft of the brief was flat-out wrong.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought because her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research.","causal_attribution":"The order itself connects the struck briefs and denial of relief to counsel's undisclosed AI use, failure to cite-check and re-submission of the defective brief (paras 17-20)."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 2 para 5: 'approximately nine of the 27 legal'; 'citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect in some way. At least two of the'; 'authorities cited do not exist at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order records that about nine of the 27 citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect and that at least two cited authorities do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The special master's own after-the-fact review, as recorded in the order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 10 para 24: 'clearly not at fault for the AI debacle'; 'She will not, however, be financially'; para 25: 'I decline to order any sanction'; conclusion: 'aggregate amount of $31,100.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order makes the two firms jointly and severally pay $31,100 in aggregate, states the client was not at fault and will not be financially responsible for the awards, and declines any sanction against individual lawyers.","causal_attribution":"Allocation of financial responsibility is directly recorded in the order."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, declaration p. 46 para 3: 'generative AI capabilities found in CoCounsel and Westlaw Precision and'; p. 47 para 4: 'It is unclear to me whether'; 'research tools I utilized returned some erroneous information.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied in part on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he cannot tell whether particular errors arose from his transcription or from a tool.","causal_attribution":"The declarant's own statement; the order does not determine which tool produced each error."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, joint response section II p. 76: 'None of the K&L Gates attorneys who worked on the subject brief used any'; order p. 3 para 7: 'the attorneys at K&L Gates didn’t'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The second firm states that none of its lawyers who worked on the brief used or had access to AI tools or knew that AI had been used until the special master's inquiries.","causal_attribution":"The firm's own submission; the order records that the special master had no reason to doubt the sworn statements."}],"effects":[{"label":"Loss of requested discovery relief after the claimant's briefs were struck","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English; read on 2026-10-09 from the retained PDF text of the 77-page filing: order pp. 2-10, appendix inventory p. 11, originating lawyer's declaration pp. 46-47 and the firms' joint response section II p. 76. PDF page 1 yielded no text. Not every appended exhibit was read.","independence_group":"lacey-ecf119"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which tool, if any, produced each erroneous citation or quotation; the declarant says he cannot distinguish his transcription errors from tool output.","Whether the requested discovery relief would have been granted had the briefs been accurate.","The later course of the insurance action and where the AI-assisted drafting took place.","Paragraph 1 of the order (PDF page 1) was not inspected because the page yielded no extractable text."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was issued by a special master in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The record does not state where the AI-assisted drafting took place or where the claimant lives, so event and affected-person countries are left unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"A filed court order directly establishes that the claimant's briefs were struck and her discovery relief denied because of AI-generated false citations in her lawyers' filings, with the monetary award placed on the firms. The tool identities are attributed to the declarant and kept as reported.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The filed order records that a lawyer used AI tools to generate the research outline for the claimant's brief and that the resulting brief contained false citations and quotations (about nine of 27 wrong, at least two non-existent). The special master read those authorities, found they did not exist, and on that basis struck the briefs and denied the discovery relief, writing that the use of AI affirmatively misled him. The declarant names CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini but cannot say which tool produced each error, so the per-tool contribution is unestablished.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Insurance claimant loses discovery relief after her lawyers file AI-generated false citations; special master's order sanctions the two firms $31,100","summary":"In an order dated 5 May 2025 and filed on 6 May in Lacey v. State Farm (C.D. Cal.), a special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research: about nine of 27 citations were wrong and at least two cited authorities did not exist. One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he could not tell whether particular errors came from his transcription or from a tool; co-counsel at the second firm say they used no AI tools and did not know AI had been used. The order makes the two firms jointly pay $31,100, states the client was not at fault and will not bear the awards, and imposes no penalty on individual lawyers.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-05","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-05-06","aiSystem":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, named in one lawyer's sworn declaration as the generative AI tools used for the research outline; the order itself refers to 'various AI tools' and does not establish which tool produced each error","aiProduct":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Gemini (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated citations; the $31,100 award falls on the firms, not on her.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One claimant whose briefs were struck and whose discovery relief was denied (order paras 20 and 24). She did not use the AI tools herself, so participant users is 0. The lawyers and firms bear the monetary award but are not counted as harmed persons.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Lacey v. State Farm General Insurance Co., C.D. Cal. 2:24-cv-05205, ECF 119: special master's sanctions order dated 5 May 2025, filed 6 May 2025 (with appendix)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T10:29:01.113121+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:12:38.363121+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025","ai-citations","court-sanction","legal-research","consequential-response"]},{"id":"2026-brazil-openai-report-user-detained-without-charge","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","causal_attribution":"Police account carried by two independent chains (BBC interviews; G1 with civil-police material)."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): He was held in pre-trial detention for 54 days; on 13 August 2026 a court granted habeas corpus because, after more than 50 days, the police inquiry had not been concluded and no charge had been filed, and imposed an electronic ankle monitor and a ban on approaching or contacting his son and the child's mother; no charges had been brought and the investigation continues.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): He was held in pre-trial detention for 54 days; on 13 August 2026 a court granted habeas corpus because, after more than 50 days, the police inquiry had not been concluded and no charge had been filed, and imposed an electronic ankle monitor and a ban on approaching or contacting his son and the child's mother; no charges had been brought and the investigation continues.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"He was held in pre-trial detention for 54 days; on 13 August 2026 a court granted habeas corpus because, after more than 50 days, the police inquiry had not been concluded and no charge had been filed, and imposed an electronic ankle monitor and a ban on approaching or contacting his son and the child's mother; no charges had been brought and the investigation continues.","causal_attribution":"Court decision as reported by the BBC (single chain; the Spanish version is the same report)."},{"id":"c3","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Police say the reported messages were corroborated by material found during the arrest. The man denied intending harm and his lawyer disputed whether any concrete step had been taken.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Police say the reported messages were corroborated by material found during the arrest. The man denied intending harm and his lawyer disputed whether any concrete step had been taken.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Police say the reported messages were corroborated by material found during the arrest. The man denied intending harm and his lawyer disputed whether any concrete step had been taken.","causal_attribution":"Police and defence accounts as quoted by the BBC; the dispute concerns intent, not the detention."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): OpenAI provided investigators with the user's details and the messages he sent but not ChatGPT's replies; it did not answer the BBC's question why and said it may notify law enforcement when it detects a credible and imminent risk of harm to others; G1 reported that OpenAI's process combines automated systems and human moderators who may contact outside bodies, as happened in this case, and that the police chief called it the third such case in Brazil.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): OpenAI provided investigators with the user's details and the messages he sent but not ChatGPT's replies; it did not answer the BBC's question why and said it may notify law enforcement when it detects a credible and imminent risk of harm to others; G1 reported that OpenAI's process combines automated systems and human moderators who may contact outside bodies, as happened in this case, and that the police chief called it the third such case in Brazil.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): OpenAI provided investigators with the user's details and the messages he sent but not ChatGPT's replies; it did not answer the BBC's question why and said it may notify law enforcement when it detects a credible and imminent risk of harm to others; G1 reported that OpenAI's process combines automated systems and human moderators who may contact outside bodies, as happened in this case, and that the police chief called it the third such case in Brazil.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"OpenAI provided investigators with the user's details and the messages he sent but not ChatGPT's replies; it did not answer the BBC's question why and said it may notify law enforcement when it detects a credible and imminent risk of harm to others; G1 reported that OpenAI's process combines automated systems and human moderators who may contact outside bodies, as happened in this case, and that the police chief called it the third such case in Brazil.","causal_attribution":"OpenAI statements and investigators' accounts as reported; the absence of the replies is stated by investigators to the BBC."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Police say the conversations ran for about two months and an alert reached Brazilian authorities in June 2026, three days before the arrest.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Police say the conversations ran for about two months and an alert reached Brazilian authorities in June 2026, three days before the arrest.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Police say the conversations ran for about two months and an alert reached Brazilian authorities in June 2026, three days before the arrest.","causal_attribution":"BBC account (single chain)."}],"effects":[{"label":"held 54 days in pre-trial detention without charge after OpenAI reported his messages; released under electronic monitoring and a ban on contacting his son and the child's mother","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"police say the report let them arrest him a day before the date on which they believed the plan against the child would be carried out","claim_id":"c1","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c8dn1l7vr6ro","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt-br","translation_note":"Read live in Portuguese on 2026-09-23 (BBC News Brasil, Iara Diniz, 14 August 2026): messages seen by the BBC, police chief and defence-lawyer interviews, the habeas corpus release and precautionary measures. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"bbc"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/cxnvlg14e1p8o","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Read live in Spanish on 2026-09-23 (BBC News Mundo, 16 September 2026): Spanish text produced by AI translation from an English-language BBC original and reviewed by a BBC journalist before publication (stated in the article); same reporting chain as s1, which is preferred where the two diverge. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"bbc"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://g1.globo.com/tecnologia/noticia/2026/06/27/como-chatgpt-identificou-plano-de-pai-para-matar-o-filho-e-levou-alerta-para-autoridades.ghtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt-BR","translation_note":"Read live in Portuguese on 2026-09-23 (G1, 27 June 2026): arrest on 19 June, the OpenAI to FBI to Ministry of Justice to state police chain, message images from the civil police, OpenAI statement, police chief to TV Gazeta. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"g1-globo"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/459083/pai-e-preso-apos-planejar-morte-do-filho-no-chatgpt-veja-analise","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read live in Portuguese on 2026-09-23 (Migalhas, 26 June 2026): summary attributed to an earlier G1/TV Gazeta report of 26 June, with lawyers' analysis; same Globo chain as s3. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"g1-globo"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships","privacy"],"unknowns":["What ChatGPT replied during the two months of conversations (OpenAI did not provide the replies).","Whether charges will be brought after the forensic results and phone examination.","Whether he in fact contacted a hired killer, as he told ChatGPT.","The exact date OpenAI made its report to the FBI.","His identity (withheld by the BBC; not sought here)."],"geography":{"basis":"Arrest at his home in rural [identifying or operational detail withheld], [identifying or operational detail withheld] (BBC, G1, Migalhas); he lives there; habeas corpus granted by the Brazilian court handling the pre-trial detention (BBC: a Justiça). OpenAI's report went via the FBI in the United States, which is not an event location.","court_countries":["BR"],"event_countries":["BR"],"affected_person_countries":["BR"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case: an AI operator's report about a user, generated by ChatGPT safety systems, led to 54 days of pre-trial detention without charge, ended by habeas corpus. Two independent reporting chains (BBC; Globo) support the arrest and its cause; the release and its terms rest on the BBC. The police account that the report prevented a planned killing is preserved as context and intent is recorded as disputed. Nobody is named; the child is not identified. The charter states that this class needs no separate ruling.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"He conversed with ChatGPT for about two months; OpenAI's safety systems flagged the conversations and the company reported them to the FBI, which passed them to Brazilian authorities (BBC, G1, with the police chief's account). OpenAI did not provide ChatGPT's replies, so what the chatbot said is unknown.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Brazilian man detained without charge after OpenAI reported messages; he denies intending harm","summary":"BBC reporting describes a Brazilian man detained for 54 days after OpenAI reported messages to the FBI and Brazilian authorities. Police described a credible threat; he denied intending harm. A court released him without charges under protective conditions. The report did not include ChatGPT’s replies.","incidentDate":"2026-06-19","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-13","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-06-26","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI); OpenAI's automated detection and human moderation systems, which generated the report","aiProduct":"ChatGPT and OpenAI moderation","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The user was held in pre-trial detention for 54 days without charge on the strength of his ChatGPT messages as reported by OpenAI, then released under electronic monitoring and a no-contact order covering his son and the child's mother while the investigation continues. Police say the report was corroborated at the scene and prevented a planned killing; he and his lawyer dispute any intent. The consequence to him is undisputed; whether it was warranted is contested.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the ChatGPT user who was detained (BBC, G1). The child and the child's mother are not counted as harmed. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"BR","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c8dn1l7vr6ro","primarySourceLabel":"BBC News Brasil — report on the case","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-23T03:45:57.312143+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T11:09:49.574842+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["chatgpt","openai","brazil","espirito-santo","law-enforcement-report","pre-trial-detention","fbi","institutional-response","communicated-with","made-claim-about"]},{"id":"2026-broffoni-google-ai-false-identification","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Una mujer a la que no conocía le avisó que en varios grupos de WhatsApp de Ceuta estaban circulando videos e imágenes suyas y que se decía que estaba proporcionando gas pimienta a inmigrantes marroquíes'; 'Recibí amenazas de muerte, de violación y ataques en general.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 26 August 2026, WhatsApp groups in Ceuta circulated videos and images claiming Flavia Broffoni was a woman filmed there allegedly giving pepper spray to Moroccan migrants, and she received death and rape threats.","causal_attribution":"Broffoni's account to La Nación, supported by the warning email and the group screenshot shown to the outlet. One reporting chain; the threats are her report, attributed."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Screenshot passage: 'uno de los usuarios había tomado un recorte del rostro de la mujer del video y lo había ingresado en una herramienta de inteligencia artificial de Google para consultarle quién era. La consulta incluía como contexto la palabra \"activista\". La respuesta identificaba a la persona de la fotografía como Flavia Broffoni'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Google Argentina response: 'no pueden confirmar que la captura corresponda a una respuesta generada por sus sistemas porque no cuentan con un enlace al resultado original'; no formal report received.","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The identification originated from a Google AI answer: a group user cropped the woman's face from the video and queried a Google AI tool with the context word 'activista'; the answer identified her as Flavia Broffoni and described her public profile.","causal_attribution":"The screenshot is the evidence of the AI answer; Google neither confirmed nor denied its provenance. The claim is attributed to the screenshot account, not asserted as independently proven."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Este medio también probó utilizar la búsqueda de Google a partir del video de la mujer que filmó en Ceuta, y la respuesta de la IA fue afirmar que se trataba de otra persona, una estudiante y community manager oriunda de Quilmes, de la cual brindó datos personales y redes sociales.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"La Nación itself ran the same video through Google's search and the AI asserted the woman was a different person — a student and community manager from Quilmes — and supplied her personal data and social networks.","causal_attribution":"The outlet documents its own replication test — direct evidence that the tool produces false identifications from this input; the second misidentified person is not counted as harmed (no virality-driven harm to her is reported)."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Yo estoy en la Patagonia, Argentina y nunca tuve relación con lo que está ocurriendo allá. La última vez que estuve en España, si mal no recuerdo, fue en 2014'; the 'tres mentiras' analysis; the others'-tests passage ('muy probablemente', short brown hair vs her current long grey hair).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Broffoni says she is not the woman in the video and was in Patagonia, having last visited Spain in 2014; she also notes there is no evidence the real woman distributed pepper spray, and that tests by other people with the same photo sometimes produced refusals and sometimes 'muy probablemente' her, justified partly from outdated photos.","causal_attribution":"Her account; the factual impossibility is uncontested in the inspected reporting. The real woman in the video is unidentified and the pepper-spray claim about her is unverified."}],"effects":[{"label":"false AI identification attached to an invented accusation, followed by death and rape threats","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/una-ia-identifico-erroneamente-a-una-activista-argentina-en-un-video-de-ceuta-denuncia-hostigamiento-nid28082026/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Read in Spanish on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2026-08-28T15:09Z; 25 substantive paragraphs including the Broffoni interview, the screenshot account, the outlet's own test and Google Argentina's response). Model translation, no human reviewer.","independence_group":"la-nacion"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["everyday_life","privacy"],"unknowns":["Which Google product produced the identification is not named in the inspected reporting; only 'una herramienta de inteligencia artificial de Google' is described.","Whether a formal complaint or lawsuit was filed after 28 August 2026 is not reported.","The identity of the woman actually filmed in Ceuta, and any basis for the pepper-spray claim about her, is unknown.","The student from Quilmes falsely identified in La Nación's test: whether she experienced any harm from the tool's identification is unreported.","The reach of the false identification beyond the Ceuta WhatsApp groups (views, reshares) is not quantified."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: the identification and its circulation happened in Ceuta — the screenshot came from a Ceuta WhatsApp group and the warning sender is described as a citizen of Ceuta. Affected person: Broffoni is in Epuyén, Chubut, Argentine Patagonia ('Yo estoy en la Patagonia, Argentina'). No court proceeding is reported.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["ES"],"affected_person_countries":["AR"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a consequential false claim about a person (made_claim_about): a named adult publicly pursuing accountability, documented through one strong original chain that includes the outlet's own replication of the failure. Threats are attributed to her account; the AI answer's provenance is attributed to the screenshot account with Google's neither-confirm-nor-deny response recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The WhatsApp-group screenshot shows a Google AI answer naming Broffoni from a face crop with 'activista' context; La Nación independently reproduced a false identification of a different person from the same video; Broffoni reports that tests by others sometimes produced 'muy probablemente' her. Google Argentina neither confirmed nor denied that the screenshot came from its systems, asking for the original link. The specific product is not named in the inspected reporting.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Argentine activist reports threats after an alleged Google AI misidentification","summary":"On 26 August 2026, WhatsApp groups in Ceuta circulated videos and images claiming that Argentine political scientist and activist Flavia Broffoni — who was in Patagonia and had not been to Spain since 2014 — was a woman filmed in Ceuta allegedly giving pepper spray to Moroccan migrants. A screenshot from one group shows that a user cropped the woman's face from the video and asked a Google AI tool who she was, with the word 'activista' as context; the answer identified her as Flavia Broffoni with details of her public profile. Broffoni received death and rape threats. La Nación's own test with the same video produced a different false identification — a student from Quilmes, with her personal data. Google Argentina said it could not confirm the screenshot came from its systems without the original link and had received no formal report. Broffoni is weighing legal action with her lawyer.","incidentDate":"2026-08-26","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-28","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-08-28","aiSystem":"Google AI tool answering a face-crop query (product not named in inspected reporting)","aiProduct":"Unidentified Google AI tool (reported)","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A false AI identification attached to an invented accusation spread in Ceuta WhatsApp groups brought death and rape threats to a woman who was demonstrably on another continent, plus reputational damage she is now addressing with a lawyer.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: Broffoni, named and interviewed. The student from Quilmes falsely identified in La Nación's own test is not counted — no harm to her from virality is reported (the test was the outlet's own); she is recorded in the unknowns.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"AR","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/una-ia-identifico-erroneamente-a-una-activista-argentina-en-un-video-de-ceuta-denuncia-hostigamiento-nid28082026/","primarySourceLabel":"La Nación (28 Aug 2026, Aldana Rizzuto) — interview with Broffoni, the WhatsApp screenshot account, the outlet's own replication test, and Google Argentina's response","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T09:23:34.062763+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T11:08:54.009102+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["made-claim-about","false-identification","google-ai","argentina","ceuta","threats","defamation-adjacent"]}]}