{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-18T07:45:51.794Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"lawyer","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":1,"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-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"]}]}