{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-18T07:45:30.715Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"lawyer","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":1,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":4,"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":"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":"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"]}]}