{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-18T07:45:23.899Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"lawyer","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"core","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":12,"coverage":{"cases":12,"countries":5,"languages":5,"unknownLocation":5,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":6,"minors":2,"coreRelations":12,"contextualRelations":1,"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-massachusetts-federal-court-sanctions-out-of-state-lawyer-who-admitted-ai-drafting-brief-with-fictitious-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Defendants filed a Motion to Strike the Second Amended Complaint on November 21, 2025'; 'Within five hours of the Enterprise Defendants' filing of the Motion to Strike'; 'The Strike Opposition was replete with inaccurate citations, including:'; 'Attributing a quotation to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation.'; 'Citing to a non-existent case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that an opposition filed on 21 November 2025 by the plaintiff's pro hac vice lawyer was replete with inaccurate citations, including a quotation attributed to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation, and that a later opposition cited a non-existent case.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings on the filings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'admitted to using AI to draft the Strike Opposition, explaining that he believed that'; 'the enterprise-level version of AI software he was using did not hallucinate cases'; 'a PDF version of [a] prior draft of the work product rather than the final, verified document'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the order, the lawyer admitted using AI to draft the first opposition, explaining a belief that the enterprise-level version of the AI software in use did not hallucinate cases, and said a prior draft had been filed by mistake.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's admission in the response to the order to show cause, as recorded by the court. It connects the AI tool's output to the fictitious citations in that filing."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'a prolonged bout of influenza'; 'has not admitted to using AI in the Travelers and'; 'whether AI was used or not'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The lawyer did not admit using AI for the later oppositions, attributing their errors to influenza; the court held sanctions warranted whether or not AI was used for them.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the lawyer's explanation and its reasoning. The AI contribution is established only for the first opposition."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'is GRANTED and the Court imposes sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.'; 'The Court revokes Attorney'; 'pro hac vice status'; 'These fees and costs shall not exceed $10,000.'; 'impose sanctions upon local counsel'; 'Dated: September 25, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 25 September 2026 the court granted the defence motion for sanctions under Rule 11, revoked the lawyer's pro hac vice admission and ordered the lawyer's firm to pay the defendants' reasonable fees and costs, not exceeding $10,000; local counsel was not sanctioned.","causal_attribution":"The sanctions order itself."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'indicates that this is not an instance of mere carelessness.'; 'pattern of neglecting to confirm the accuracy of his'; 'has since implemented citation-verification procedures'; 'completed Continuing Legal Education (\"CLE\") credits on the ethical use of AI'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that continued submission of false or misleading citations after notice was not mere carelessness and showed a pattern of neglecting to confirm the accuracy of submissions; it credited the lawyer's later citation-verification procedures and continuing legal education on the ethical use of AI.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings and its account of mitigation."}],"effects":[{"label":"lawyer's pro hac vice admission revoked and firm ordered to pay up to $10,000 of the defendants' fees","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.288446/gov.uscourts.mad.288446.155.0.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.","independence_group":"d-mass-case-1-25-cv-12395-sanctions-order"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI product was used and how it was prompted","Whether AI was used for the two later oppositions, which the lawyer did not admit","The final amount of fees and costs, to be agreed or reported to the court by 23 October 2026","Whether the plaintiff suffered any consequence from the sanctions or the change of counsel"],"geography":{"basis":"The filings were made in, and the sanctions imposed by, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Where the lawyer drafted the filings and where the lawyer lives are not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a documented court sanction. A federal court order records a lawyer's admission that AI drafted a filing with fictitious citations, and the court revoked the lawyer's pro hac vice admission and ordered fees of up to $10,000. The lawyer, the plaintiff and the deceased are not named here.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sanctions order records the lawyer's admission that an AI tool was used to draft the 21 November 2025 opposition, which the court found contained a quotation attributed to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation and other inaccurate citations. The tool's generated draft reached the lawyer, who filed it (communicated_with); the court then sanctioned the lawyer for this and two later filings. The lawyer did not admit AI use for the later filings, and the order does not name the AI product.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Massachusetts federal court revokes an out-of-state lawyer's admission and orders fees after briefs with false citations; the lawyer admitted AI drafted one","summary":"On 25 September 2026 a judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a defence motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against a California-barred lawyer admitted for one case (pro hac vice) to represent the plaintiff. The court found that an opposition the lawyer filed on 21 November 2025 was replete with inaccurate citations, including a quotation attributed to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation, and that later oppositions cited a non-existent case. In response to the court's order to show cause, the lawyer admitted using AI to draft the first opposition and explained a belief that the enterprise-level AI software in use did not hallucinate cases. The court revoked the lawyer's pro hac vice admission and ordered the lawyer's firm to pay the defendants' reasonable fees and costs, capped at $10,000. The order does not name the AI product.","incidentDate":"2025-11-21","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-25","aiSystem":"An unnamed enterprise-level AI software product that the lawyer admitted using to draft a court filing, according to the sanctions order","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's order, a lawyer who admitted using AI to draft a brief that contained fictitious citations had pro hac vice admission revoked, and the lawyer's firm was ordered to pay up to $10,000 of the defendants' fees and costs.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the sanctioned lawyer, who admitted using the AI tool (claims c2 and c4). Local counsel was not sanctioned and is not counted. The plaintiff is not counted because the order describes no consequence of the sanctions for the plaintiff.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.288446/gov.uscourts.mad.288446.155.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Memorandum and Order on sanctions, Dkt. 155, case 1:25-cv-12395 (25 September 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:10:29.878255+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:10:29.878255+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","massachusetts","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","pro-hac-vice"]},{"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-alabama-federal-court-disqualifies-three-butler-snow-lawyers-over-chatgpt-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'On May 7, 2025, Defendant Dunn filed a motion for leave to take the'; 'Then, at 4:21 p.m. on May 12, 2025, Defendant'; 'In total, there were five problematic citations across two motions'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'filed two motions with five'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Two motions filed for the defendant, a former Alabama corrections commissioner, on 7 and 12 May 2025 contained five citations that did not exist or did not support the propositions for which they were cited.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's own review recorded in the sanctions order."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'possibly through the use of generative artificial intelligence.'; 'The next day, Plaintiff'; 'On May 14, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part'; 'conducted independent searches for each allegedly fabricated citation, to no avail'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'the court has conducted independent searches for each allegedly fabricated citation, to no avail'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff's response of 15 May 2025 objected that defence counsel appeared to have fabricated citations, possibly through generative AI; the court searched for each citation without result and ordered the signatories and the firm to show cause.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history documented by the order; the Guardian quotes the same show-cause order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'In short, attorney Matt Reeves used ChatGPT to obtain'; 'case citations returned by ChatGPT through independent review in Westlaw or'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'failed to verify the case citations returned by ChatGPT through independent review in Westlaw or Pacer before including them'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyers' response stated that partner Matthew Reeves used ChatGPT to obtain case citations for two arguments without verifying them, and Reeves declared that he did not verify the citations ChatGPT returned in Westlaw or PACER.","causal_attribution":"The statements are documented by the order; the AI's role in the citations rests on the lawyers' admission, which the court accepted."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'the court PUBLICLY REPRIMANDS Mr.'; 'them from further participation in this case; and REFERS this matter to the Alabama'; 'the court exercises its discretion not to suspend them from'; 'SANCTION attorneys Daniel J. Chism and Lynette E. Potter, and the law firm'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Manasco also publicly reprimanded the lawyers; referred them to the Alabama State Bar'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 23 July 2025 the court publicly reprimanded three lawyers, disqualified them from the case, referred the matter to the Alabama State Bar and other licensing authorities, declined to suspend them, and released two other lawyers and the firm without sanction.","causal_attribution":"Established by the operative passages of the sanctions order; the ABA Journal relays it."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'reviewed more than 2,400 separate legal'; 'citations across 330 filings.”'; 'revealed no additional “legal citations that were fabricated,”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'No other instances of incorrect case references were found.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Butler Snow commissioned an independent review by Morgan Lewis of more than 2,400 citations across 330 filings. A Morgan Lewis partner declared that the review revealed no additional fabricated citations, and the ABA Journal reports that no other incorrect case references were found.","causal_attribution":"The scope of the review and the Morgan Lewis partner's declaration are documented by the order; the ABA Journal relays the finding."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'and in these two instances I did not comply with policy'; 'I would hope your honor would not punish my colleagues'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"At the 21 May 2025 hearing, according to The Guardian, Reeves said he was aware of the limitations on AI use and had not complied with the firm's policy in these two instances, and asked the court not to punish his colleagues.","causal_attribution":"Statements at the hearing as reported by The Guardian."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'knowledge that Matt Reeves utilized generative artificial intelligence to generate'; 'Mr. Cranford is of counsel at Butler Snow'; 'or substantive review of the legal authorities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The of-counsel lawyer who drafted the motions declared that he had no knowledge that Reeves had used generative AI, and the practice group leader declared that he did not conduct a detailed or substantive review of the legal authorities in the second motion.","causal_attribution":"Declarations summarised and quoted in the sanctions order."}],"effects":[{"label":"three lawyers were publicly reprimanded, disqualified and referred to the state bar over ChatGPT-fabricated citations","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677.204.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from the RECAP copy of the 51-page order (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext). The declarations, the hearing transcript (Doc. 200) and the Morgan Lewis report it cites were not read separately.","independence_group":"johnson-v-dunn-nd-ala-sanctions-order"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/24/alabama-prison-lawyers-chatgpt-butler-snow","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 (HTTP 200). The Guardian reports the 21 May 2025 show-cause hearing and quotes the court's order and Reeves's declaration.","independence_group":"guardian-butler-snow-may-2025"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/5-fabricated-cases-lead-federal-judge-to-kick-3-butler-snow-lawyers-off-case","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 (HTTP 200). The ABA Journal relays the 23 July 2025 order and Butler Snow's 19 May filing.","independence_group":"johnson-v-dunn-nd-ala-sanctions-order"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The outcome of the referral to the Alabama State Bar and other licensing authorities.","Which version of ChatGPT was used and what prompts produced the citations; the order records the partner's description of a search only.","Whether the disqualification delayed the plaintiff's case beyond the 30-day stay the order mentions."],"geography":{"basis":"The motions were filed in, and the sanctions imposed by, the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (sanctions order). Where the partner ran the ChatGPT search is not stated, so no event or affected-person country is recorded from the court seat.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the federal sanctions order of 23 July 2025 documents that three defence lawyers were publicly reprimanded, disqualified and referred to the state bar over five fabricated or unsupported citations that the lawyers confirmed were hallucinations of ChatGPT, which one partner had used without verifying.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sanctions order records that three defence lawyers confirmed in writing and at a hearing that the citations were hallucinations of ChatGPT, and quotes their joint response that partner Matthew Reeves used ChatGPT to obtain case citations for two arguments without verifying them; Reeves declared that he searched ChatGPT for supporting case law and did not verify the citations it returned. The court found five citations across the two motions that do not exist or do not support the propositions cited, and sanctioned three lawyers for those false statements. The AI output therefore reached the sanctioned filings through the partner's own exchange with ChatGPT (communicated_with). The drafting lawyer declared that he did not know generative AI had been used, and the practice group leader that he did not substantively review the legal authorities.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Alabama federal judge reprimands and disqualifies three Butler Snow lawyers and refers them to the state bar over ChatGPT-fabricated citations (2025)","summary":"In an incarcerated man's lawsuit against Alabama prison officials in the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, two motions filed in May 2025 for the defence of a former Alabama corrections commissioner contained five citations that did not exist or did not support the propositions cited. Lawyers of the Butler Snow firm, which the state retains to defend its prisons, told the court that a partner had obtained the citations from ChatGPT and had not verified them. On 23 July 2025 Judge Anna M. Manasco publicly reprimanded three of the firm's lawyers, disqualified them from the case and referred the matter to the Alabama State Bar, and ordered them to give the order to clients, opposing counsel and judges in all their pending cases. She declined to suspend them and released the firm and two other lawyers without sanction.","incidentDate":"2025-05-07","incidentEndDate":"2025-07-23","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-05-24","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which a Butler Snow partner told the court he used to search for supporting case law; the order records the citations as hallucinations of ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's sanctions order of 23 July 2025, three Butler Snow lawyers were publicly reprimanded, disqualified from the case and referred to the Alabama State Bar after two motions contained citations that the lawyers confirmed were hallucinations of ChatGPT, which one of them had used and not verified.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Three lawyers sanctioned in the 23 July 2025 order: the partner who declared that he used ChatGPT (counted as the AI user) and the drafting lawyer and the practice group leader, whose own use of ChatGPT is not established (counted as other people harmed). The firm and the two lawyers released without sanction are not counted; the plaintiff and the defendant are not counted as harmed by the AI use.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677/gov.uscourts.alnd.179677.204.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Johnson v. Dunn, No. 2:21-cv-01701, Sanctions Order (Doc. 204), 23 July 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:01:17.679643+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:01:17.679643+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["alabama","federal-court","prison-litigation","lawyers","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","disqualification","bar-referral"]},{"id":"2025-johannesburg-high-court-refers-applicant-lawyers-to-legal-practice-council-over-ai-tool-fictitious-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'two cases cited in Northbound Processing'; 'were fictitious'; 'the revised version contained two additional incorrect citations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'heads of argument contained fictitious case citations that appeared to have been generated by artificial intelligence'; 'contained two additional incorrect citations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"While preparing judgment in Northbound Processing's urgent application against the South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator, the acting judge found that two cases cited in the applicant's heads of argument did not exist, and a corrected version supplied by junior counsel contained two further incorrect citations.","causal_attribution":"The judgment as described by ITWeb and by a law-firm alert; both rest on the same judgment, which was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'acknowledged that the non-existent citations likely originated from an AI tool'; 'he had used a tool called'; 'which claimed to be trained solely on South African legal sources'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'counsel acknowledged the use of AI, accepted full responsibility'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On the court's direct inquiry, junior counsel acknowledged that the non-existent citations likely originated from an AI tool and said a tool called Legal Genius had been used under deadline pressure.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's statement to the court as relayed by ITWeb; the law-firm alert relays the acknowledgment without naming the tool."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'found no intent to deceive the court'; 'be referred to the Legal Practice Council for investigation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'a referral to the Legal Practice Council for investigation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judge accepted the legal team's apologies and found no intent to deceive the court, but ordered that the conduct of Northbound's legal practitioners be referred to the Legal Practice Council for investigation.","causal_attribution":"The court's order as described by both accounts of the judgment."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'While Northbound ultimately succeeded in obtaining the relief sought'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Northbound nevertheless obtained the relief it sought in the application.","causal_attribution":"The law-firm alert's account of the judgment."}],"effects":[{"label":"the applicant's legal practitioners were referred to the Legal Practice Council for investigation over fictitious citations","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.itweb.co.za/article/lawyers-face-probe-for-using-hallucinating-genai-in-court/Pero3MZ3221qQb6m","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200). ITWeb reports from court documents it saw; the judgment itself was not available to the agent.","independence_group":"northbound-processing-judgment-zagpjhc"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com/en/news/publications/2025/Practice/Employment-Law/combined-employment-and-knowledge-management-alert-4-july-Another-episode-of-fabricated-citations-real-repercussions-South-African-courts-show-no-tolerance-for-AI-hallucinated-cases","kind":"other","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from a 2025 Internet Archive capture (the live page returned HTTP 403). A law-firm client alert analysing the same judgment; same origin as ITWeb.","independence_group":"northbound-processing-judgment-zagpjhc"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The exact date of the judgment and of the referral order.","How many practitioners were referred and the outcome of any Legal Practice Council investigation.","Which citations Legal Genius produced and whether the tool provider responded."],"geography":{"basis":"The heads were filed in, and the referral ordered by, the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg (ITWeb, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). Where counsel prepared the heads is not stated, so no event or affected-person country is recorded from the court seat.","court_countries":["ZA"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because two accounts of the judgment report that the court referred the applicant's lawyers to the Legal Practice Council after heads of argument cited non-existent cases, and that junior counsel told the court the citations likely came from the AI tool Legal Genius.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"ITWeb, which saw the court documents, reports that on the court's direct inquiry junior counsel acknowledged that the non-existent citations in the heads of argument likely originated from an AI tool and said a tool called Legal Genius had been used under deadline pressure; Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr's analysis of the judgment says counsel acknowledged the use of AI. The tool's output (citations of cases that do not exist) was filed in the heads, and the court referred the practitioners to the Legal Practice Council because fictitious authorities were placed before it. The attribution rests on counsel's acknowledgment as relayed by these two accounts of the judgment; the judgment itself was not read.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Johannesburg High Court refers a company's lawyers to the Legal Practice Council over fictitious citations that junior counsel said likely came from an AI tool","summary":"In an urgent application by Northbound Processing against the South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator, Acting Judge DJ Smit of the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, found while preparing judgment that two cases cited in the applicant's heads of argument did not exist. According to ITWeb, which saw the court documents, junior counsel first said a wrong version had been filed, a corrected version was found to contain two further incorrect citations, and on the court's direct inquiry junior counsel acknowledged that the citations likely originated from an AI tool called Legal Genius, used under deadline pressure. The judge accepted the legal team's apologies and found no intent to deceive, but referred the conduct of the applicant's legal practitioners to the Legal Practice Council for investigation (June 2025). The applicant obtained the relief it sought.","incidentDate":"2025-06-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-07-02","aiSystem":"Legal Genius, an AI legal research tool that junior counsel told the court had been used and which, junior counsel said, claimed to be trained solely on South African legal sources","aiProduct":"Legal Genius (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to ITWeb and a law-firm alert on the judgment, the court referred the applicant's legal practitioners to the Legal Practice Council for investigation after heads of argument cited non-existent cases that junior counsel said likely came from the AI tool Legal Genius.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the junior counsel who told the court the tool had been used, among the legal practitioners whose conduct was referred. The order refers the practitioners as a group and the sources read do not state how many were referred, so others are unquantified. The applicant company is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"ZA","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.itweb.co.za/article/lawyers-face-probe-for-using-hallucinating-genai-in-court/Pero3MZ3221qQb6m","primarySourceLabel":"ITWeb, 2 July 2025: Lawyers face probe for using hallucinating GenAI in court","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:33.803607+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:33.803607+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["south-africa","johannesburg","high-court","fictitious-citations","legal-practice-council","legal-research-tool"]},{"id":"2025-colorado-federal-court-fines-mypillow-defence-lawyers-over-brief-with-fabricated-citations-after-ai-admission","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Defendants filed their Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff'; 'the Court identified nearly thirty defective citations in the Opposition'; 'and most egregiously, citation of cases that do not exist'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'and most egregiously, citation of cases that do not exist'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The defendants' opposition to the plaintiff's motion in limine, filed on 25 February 2025 and signed by Kachouroff and DeMaster, contained nearly thirty defective citations, including misquotes and citations of cases that do not exist.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court orders, which record the court's own review of the filed brief."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Was this motion generated by generative'; 'Initially, I did an outline for myself, and I'; 'drafted a motion, and then we ran it through AI'; 'I personally did not check it'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Final Pretrial/Trial Preparation Conference held on April 21, 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"At the final pretrial conference on 21 April 2025, asked whether the motion was generated by generative artificial intelligence, Kachouroff said he had drafted it and then ran it through AI, and that he personally did not check the citations.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's statement to the court, quoted from the transcript in the 7 July order; it establishes what counsel said, and the AI's role in the defective citations rests on that statement and the co-counsel declaration."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'believed some of these citations were likely from AI drafts'; 'I do not rely on AI to do legal research or find cases'; 'the use of generative artificial intelligence or gross carelessness by counsel'; 'Nor is this Court persuaded by counsel'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Co-counsel's declaration said Kachouroff had told her he believed some of the citations were likely from AI drafts; counsel also said a wrong draft had been filed by mistake and Kachouroff declared he does not rely on AI to do legal research or find cases. The court was not persuaded by the wrong-draft explanation and found no explanation of how the citations appeared absent generative AI or gross carelessness.","causal_attribution":"The declarations' content and the court's findings are documented by the order; the order does not itself find which tool produced the citations."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Court hereby SANCTIONS Christopher I. Kachouroff and the law firm'; 'The Court hereby SANCTIONS Jennifer T. DeMaster in the amount of'; 'this Court does not extend the sanctions to Defendants'; 'no later than August 4, 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A federal judge ordered two attorneys representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell in a Colorado defamation case to pay $3,000 each'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 7 July 2025 the court held that Kachouroff and DeMaster violated Rule 11 and sanctioned Kachouroff and his law firm jointly $3,000 and DeMaster $3,000, payable by 4 August 2025, and did not extend the sanctions to Lindell or his companies.","causal_attribution":"Established by the operative part of the 7 July order; NPR relays it."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Kachouroff and DeMaster didn'; 'request for comment'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"NPR reported that Kachouroff and DeMaster did not respond to its request for comment.","causal_attribution":"NPR's own report of its request."}],"effects":[{"label":"two defence lawyers were fined $3,000 each for a brief with fabricated citations that lead counsel said had been run through AI","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129-10.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 (HTTP 200). Order of 7 July 2025 (Doc. 383, 20 pages) read in full; the hearing transcript, the declarations and the draft exhibits it cites were not read separately.","independence_group":"coomer-v-lindell-d-colo-sanctions-orders"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129-8.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 (HTTP 200). Order to show cause of 23 April 2025 (Doc. 309) read in full.","independence_group":"coomer-v-lindell-d-colo-sanctions-orders"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.npr.org/2025/07/10/nx-s1-5463512/ai-courts-lawyers-mypillow-fines","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200). NPR reports the 7 July order and quotes it; it adds that the lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.","independence_group":"coomer-v-lindell-d-colo-sanctions-orders"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used on the brief and which citations it introduced.","Whether either lawyer has faced bar disciplinary proceedings over the brief; the final order imposes fines only."],"geography":{"basis":"The brief was filed in, and the sanctions imposed by, the US District Court for the District of Colorado (both orders). Where the lawyers drafted the brief is not stated, so no event or affected-person country is recorded from the court seat.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's 7 July 2025 order documents that two defence lawyers were fined $3,000 each for a brief with nearly thirty defective citations, including non-existent cases, and quotes lead counsel's statement in court that the draft was run through AI and not checked.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's 7 July 2025 order quotes lead counsel's answer at the 21 April 2025 conference that after drafting the motion 'we ran it through AI' and that he did not check the citations, and quotes co-counsel's declaration that he believed some of the citations were likely from AI drafts. The filed brief contained citations of cases that do not exist, and the court found counsel gave no explanation of how those citations appeared absent the use of generative artificial intelligence or gross carelessness; it fined both lawyers for the brief. The AI output is thus connected to the sanctioned filing by counsel's own statements in the court record. Counsel later declared that he does not rely on AI to do legal research or find cases, and the court did not identify the tool.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Colorado federal court fines two MyPillow defence lawyers $3,000 each over a brief with fabricated citations; lead counsel had admitted running it through AI","summary":"In the defamation case Coomer v. Lindell in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, a brief that lawyers for Mike Lindell and MyPillow filed on 25 February 2025 contained nearly thirty defective citations, including citations of cases that do not exist. At a conference on 21 April 2025 lead counsel Christopher Kachouroff told Judge Nina Y. Wang that he had drafted the motion and then 'ran it through AI' and had not personally checked the citations. Counsel later said a wrong draft had been filed by mistake; the court was not persuaded. On 7 July 2025 the court found that he and co-counsel Jennifer DeMaster had violated Rule 11 and fined each $3,000 (Kachouroff jointly with his law firm). The court did not sanction Lindell or his companies.","incidentDate":"2025-02-25","incidentEndDate":"2025-07-07","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-04-23","aiSystem":"A generative AI tool that lead counsel said the draft brief was run through; the court record does not identify which tool was used for this brief","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's 7 July 2025 order, two defence lawyers were found to have violated Rule 11 and were each fined $3,000 after filing a brief with nearly thirty defective citations, including non-existent cases, which lead counsel had said was run through AI.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people sanctioned in the 7 July 2025 order: lead counsel, who told the court the draft was run through AI (counted as the AI user), and co-counsel who signed the brief, whose own use of AI is not established (counted as another person harmed). The law firm is an organisation and is not counted; the defendants were not sanctioned.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129-10.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court for the District of Colorado, Coomer v. Lindell, order on the order to show cause (Doc. 383), 7 July 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:29.9489+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:29.9489+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["colorado","federal-court","defamation-case","lawyers","fabricated-citations","rule-11-sanction","generative-ai"]},{"id":"2025-ontario-lawyer-chatgpt-factum-invented-cases-contempt-referral-licence-suspension","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On May 1, the applicant’s counsel presented a motion seeking relief in this application. During oral submissions, she delivered a factum and cited cases to support the applicant’s arguments.'; 'The judge asked the lawyer if AI like ChatGPT supported the preparation of the factum. She said she would have to ask her clerk.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'After the hearing, the judge again reviewed the factum and found two more incorrect citations — one to a non-existent case and another to a case that stood for the opposite proposition than that for which it had been cited.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'When Justice Myers confronted her in open court about whether she had used ChatGPT, she categorically denied it, stating, “I did not.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'whether she had used ChatGPT to write her factum'; 'said she had not.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"At a motion hearing on 1 May 2025 in an Ontario Superior Court of Justice estate and family-law application, the applicant’s lawyer relied in writing and orally on a factum citing cases that the judge could not find or that did not support the propositions cited; asked whether AI such as ChatGPT had been used, the lawyer said, according to Canadian Lawyer and LawSites, that she would have to ask her clerk, while Law360 Canada and the tribunal reasons as reported by Law Times say she denied using ChatGPT.","causal_attribution":"Account of the court’s first endorsement (2025 ONSC 2766) as relayed by two legal-press outlets, with the lawyer’s answer in court given differently by Law360 Canada and by the tribunal reasons as reported by Law Times; the endorsement itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'factum may have been created by AI and that before filing the factum and relying on it in court, she might not have checked to make sure the cases were real'; 'the judge ordered the attorney to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'counsel was ordered to return for a show cause hearing to argue why she should not be cited for contempt of court'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The judge found that the factum appeared to have been created by AI and not checked, and ordered the lawyer to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt of court.","causal_attribution":"The court’s own statement, as quoted by LawSites and summarised by Cassels."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'At an informal scheduling conference on May 16, 2025, counsel was forthright in admitting her error and provided an explanation.'; 'In a written decision released on May 20, 2025, the Court found it unnecessary to continue with contempt proceedings'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'explaining that her staff had used ChatGPT to prepare the factum without her knowledge. She apologized for the mistake and promised to complete at least six hours of continuing professional education in legal ethics and technology.'; 'suffered a public shaming near the end of an unblemished career,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"After telling the court that her staff had used ChatGPT to prepare the factum without her knowledge, apologising and undertaking continuing professional education, the lawyer had the show-cause order withdrawn in a decision released on 20 May 2025, which noted that she had suffered a public shaming near the end of an unblemished career.","causal_attribution":"The court’s second decision (2025 ONSC 2965) as summarised by Cassels and recited in the tribunal reasons reported by Law Times."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'admitting the truth: there was no student.'; 'The new disclosure raises issues of deception of the court in a contempt of court proceeding. The procedural context and the quality of the acts are very different.'; 'the court appointed amicus curiae Dean Embry to ensure'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'revealing that she alone prepared the AI-assisted factum, reversing her prior claim that others were involved. The court treated this as a fresh act of potential contempt and referred the matter to the Attorney General.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"On 30 September 2025 the lawyer wrote to the court that she alone had prepared the factum using ChatGPT and that her earlier account blaming staff was untrue; on 4 December 2025 the court referred the matter to the Attorney General of Ontario for criminal contempt proceedings and appointed an amicus curiae.","causal_attribution":"The court’s third decision (2025 ONSC 6785) as described by Law360 Canada and WeirFoulds; both relay the same decision."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'will have her license to practise law suspended for six months starting July 17. The tribunal'; 'to pay $10,000 to the Law Society of Ontario'; 'containing only non-existent or irrelevant case law generated by an artificial intelligence tool” and later lying to the court about not using the tool.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 16 July 2026 the Law Society Tribunal suspended the lawyer’s licence for six months from 17 July and ordered her to pay $10,000 to the Law Society of Ontario, finding that she relied on a factum containing only non-existent or irrelevant case law generated by an AI tool and later lied to the court about not using the tool.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal’s order as reported by Law Times; the order itself was not read."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the lawyer failed to serve her client in a family law matter by using ChatGPT to prepare a factum containing AI-hallucinated case citations and arguments.'; 'Later, she admitted that she had prepared the factum herself and did not know hallucinations existed until Myers confronted her about her submissions.'; 'we are extremely troubled by the lawyer’s subsequent repeated lies to the court and to the law society'; 'had little to no prior experience with ChatGPT'; 'That case remains ongoing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The tribunal’s reasons, as reported, say the lawyer failed to serve her client by using ChatGPT to prepare a factum containing hallucinated citations and arguments, that she had prepared the factum herself with little or no prior experience of ChatGPT, that her repeated lies to the court and the Law Society troubled the tribunal more than the reliance, and that the criminal contempt case remained ongoing.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal’s reasons as reported by Law Times; the reasons themselves were not read."}],"effects":[{"label":"show-cause order for contempt, referral for criminal contempt and a six-month licence suspension after relying on ChatGPT-generated nonexistent case law","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/family/superior-court-says-family-law-case-factum-may-have-fake-legal-citations-due-to-ai-hallucinations/392433","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Canadian Lawyer, 13 May 2025, reporting the first endorsement (2025 ONSC 2766); HTTP 200. The endorsement itself (CanLII) returned 403 live and from the Internet Archive.","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/2025/05/ai-hallucinations-strike-again-two-more-cases-where-lawyers-face-judicial-wrath-for-fake-citations.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. LawSites (LawNext), 14 May 2025, summarising the same endorsement; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://cassels.com/insights/fantasies-in-the-footnotes-ontario-court-rebukes-counsel-for-fake-and-misleading-ai-generated-case-citations/","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Cassels law-firm commentary, 23 May 2025, summarising 2025 ONSC 2766 and 2025 ONSC 2965; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.law360.ca/ca/articles/2419185","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Law360 Canada analysis, 8 Dec 2025, describing 2025 ONSC 6785 and quoting it; HTTP 200 (full text served).","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.weirfoulds.com/pdf-article?id=36828","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. WeirFoulds law-firm article PDF, 23 Dec 2025, on 2025 ONSC 6785; HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext.","independence_group":"ontario-superior-court-endorsements-2025"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.lawtimesnews.com/resources/professional-regulation/law-society-tribunal-temporarily-suspends-lawyers-license-after-finding-she-lied-about-chatgpt-use/393450","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Law Times, 16 Jul 2026, on the Law Society Tribunal order; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"law-society-tribunal-order-and-reasons-2026"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.lawtimesnews.com/resources/professional-regulation/out-of-character-tribunal-explains-six-month-suspension-of-lawyer-who-lied-about-chatgpt-use/393453","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it. Law Times, 21 Jul 2026, on the tribunal reasons; HTTP 200. The tribunal order and reasons themselves were not read.","independence_group":"law-society-tribunal-order-and-reasons-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The outcome of the criminal contempt proceeding referred to the Attorney General; the latest source read (21 July 2026) says it remained ongoing.","Whether the client suffered any concrete consequence in the estate application; the tribunal found the lawyer failed to serve her client but no source read describes an effect on the case.","Which ChatGPT version was used and what prompts produced the citations.","The court endorsements and the tribunal order and reasons were not read directly (CanLII returned 403); all claims rest on legal-press and law-firm accounts of them."],"geography":{"basis":"The factum was filed and argued at a hearing of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and the lawyer is described as a Toronto lawyer licensed by the Law Society of Ontario, whose tribunal suspended her.","court_countries":["CA"],"event_countries":["CA"],"affected_person_countries":["CA"]},"publication":{"basis":"Legal-press and law-firm accounts of three Ontario Superior Court decisions and a Law Society Tribunal order describe a lawyer who relied on ChatGPT-generated nonexistent case law in a factum, was ordered to show cause for contempt, later admitted she alone had used ChatGPT and had misled the court, was referred for criminal contempt and was suspended for six months.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The lawyer told the court in September 2025 that she alone prepared the factum using ChatGPT, and the Law Society Tribunal, as reported by Law Times, found that she relied on a factum containing only non-existent or irrelevant case law generated by an AI tool and that she used ChatGPT to prepare it. ChatGPT’s output (citations to cases that do not exist or do not support the propositions) reached the lawyer, who filed it and relied on it orally at the 1 May 2025 hearing; the court’s contempt proceedings and the tribunal’s suspension followed from that reliance and from her later false account of it. The tribunal’s main concern was her dishonesty, which is a separate act by the lawyer.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Ontario: lawyer who relied on ChatGPT-invented case law in a factum was referred for criminal contempt and suspended for six months, legal press reports","summary":"An Ontario lawyer relied, at a 1 May 2025 Superior Court hearing in an estate and family-law matter, on a factum citing cases that do not exist or do not support the propositions cited. The judge ordered her to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt, then withdrew the order on 20 May 2025 after she said her staff had used ChatGPT without her knowledge. On 30 September 2025 she told the court that she alone had prepared the factum with ChatGPT and that her earlier account was untrue; the court referred the matter to Ontario’s Attorney General for criminal contempt proceedings in December 2025. In July 2026 the Law Society Tribunal suspended her licence for six months, finding she relied on AI-generated non-existent case law and lied about it. The account comes from legal-press and law-firm reports of the decisions; the criminal contempt case was still ongoing at the last report read.","incidentDate":"2025-05-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-05-13","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which the lawyer admitted using to prepare the factum and which the Law Society Tribunal found generated the non-existent or irrelevant case law","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to legal-press reports of the court and tribunal decisions, the lawyer faced a contempt show-cause order and a referral for criminal contempt, and the Law Society Tribunal suspended her licence for six months and ordered her to pay $10,000 to the Law Society of Ontario; the court noted she had suffered a public shaming near the end of an unblemished career.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the lawyer who used ChatGPT, is reported to have suffered the contempt proceedings and the suspension. The tribunal found she failed to serve her client, but no source read describes a concrete consequence for the client, who is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawtimesnews.com/resources/professional-regulation/out-of-character-tribunal-explains-six-month-suspension-of-lawyer-who-lied-about-chatgpt-use/393453","primarySourceLabel":"Law Times, 21 Jul 2026: tribunal explains six-month suspension of lawyer who lied about ChatGPT use","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:13:48.661937+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:13:48.661937+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated_citations","courts","lawyer_sanction","contempt_of_court","professional_discipline","canada","ontario"]},{"id":"2025-jakarta-jusuf-hamka-ai-deepfake-detainee-videos-tiktok-trial","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'narasi fitnah yang dibuat dengan menggunakan Artificial Inteligen (AI) di media sosial TikTok'; 'sedang menggunakan pakaian tahanan dan dikaitkan dengan tuduhan korupsi, suap, dan gratifikasi'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'pelaku memakai teknologi Artificial Intelligence (AI) untuk melakukan manipulasi visual wajah Jusuf Hamka dan putrinya'; 'menyebarkannya melalui akun TikTok'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Menyebarkan narasi suap konsesi Tol Cawang-Pluit senilai lebih dari Rp1 triliun'; 'Memasang poster rekayasa yang mencalonkan Jusuf Hamka sebagai presiden 2029'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'seolah memakai baju tahanan kejaksaan karena dituduh melakukan suap, gratifikasi untuk konsesi tol Cawang-Pluit'; 'pelaku mengedit foto'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"}],"assertion":"Videos on TikTok showed Jusuf Hamka and his daughter as if wearing detainee uniforms, tied to narratives of corruption, bribery and gratification that his lawyers call false over the Cawang-Pluit toll concession; his lawyers say the faces were composited with AI into staged scenes (VIVA) and that photos were edited to show them in prosecutors' detainee clothing (ANTARA, 4 December 2025), and other content included a 'toll mafia' label and a fabricated 2029 presidential poster.","causal_attribution":"Hamka's lawyers and the prosecution case as reported; the videos were not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Laporan ini teregister di Polda Metro dengan nomor STTLP/B/7474/X/2025/SPKT/Polda Metro Jaya tertanggal 18 Oktober 2025'; 'Pada 24 November 2025, penyidik secara resmi meningkatkan status perkara ke tahap penyidikan usai ditemukan bukti'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'ditangkap penyidik Unit 2 Subdit 2 Direktorat Siber Polda Metro Jaya pada Kamis (27/11) usai dilaporkan pada 18 Oktober 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'pada 27 November 2025, penyidik Unit 2 Subdit 2 Direktorat Siber Polda Metro Jaya menangkap salah seorang pemilik akun Tiktok'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Hamka reported the content to Polda Metro Jaya on 18 October 2025; the case was raised to investigation on 24 November and the suspected maker and spreader was arrested by the cyber directorate on 27 November 2025.","causal_attribution":"Reported through Hamka's lawyers; VIVA's second page quotes the cyber directorate's deputy director confirming one arrest, without a date."},{"id":"c3","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'menghadiri sidang dakwaan dugaan hoaks dan manipulasi informasi elektronik konten deepfake di Pengadilan Negeri (PN) Jakarta Pusat pada Selasa (15/9/2026)'; 'kubu terdakwa melalui kuasa hukumnya mengaku bakal menempuh upaya eksepsi'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'didakwa melanggar Pasal 35 juncto Pasal 51 ayat (1) UU ITE dengan ancaman hukuman maksimal 12 tahun penjara'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The trial opened at the Central Jakarta District Court on 15 September 2026 with the reading of an indictment under Article 35 jo 51(1) of the ITE Law (maximum 12 years); the defence said it would file an exception.","causal_attribution":"Court reporting by tvOneNews and Poskota, with different content from the same hearing."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'narasi yang termuat dalam konten tersebut dinilainya tidak benar dan berpotensi merusak reputasinya'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'penyebaran ini menimbulkan dampak psikologis, reputasional, serta kerugian moril'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Hamka said the content disturbed him, that its narratives were untrue and could damage his reputation, and that the campaign was systematic; his lawyer said the spread caused psychological, reputational and moral harm.","causal_attribution":"Hamka's own statements and his lawyer's; no independent assessment of harm."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'terdakwa mengaku mendapat imbalan sebesar Rp500.000 untuk setiap konten yang dibuat atas perintah pihak tertentu'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'kan dia dikasih duit Rp500.000 setiap konten'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'pernyataan mengenai pembayaran tersebut merupakan klaim Jusuf yang masih menjadi bagian dari perkara'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"Hamka and his lawyers say the defendant admitted during the police investigation that he made the content on others' orders for Rp500,000 per item; tvOneNews notes this payment is Hamka's claim within a contested case.","causal_attribution":"Claim of the complainant's side; the alleged admission was not inspected."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Tidak ada ruang untuk restorative justice kecuali dia mau bicara dengan tegas di pengadilan, siapa yang menyuruh melakukan tindak pidana ini dan juga yang membayar'; 'surat dakwaan jaksa dinilai tidak cermat dan belum menjelaskan secara jelas perbuatan pidana yang didakwakan kepada kliennya'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"'majelis hakim sempat menanyakan kemungkinan penyelesaian perkara melalui mekanisme restorative justice'; 'membantah argumentasi yang disampaikan pihak Jusuf Hamka'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"'secara tegas menutup pintu penyelesaian secara restorative justice (RJ)'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"At the 29 September 2026 hearing the judges asked about restorative justice; Hamka's lawyer said there was no room for it unless the defendant named who ordered and paid; the defendant's lawyer said the content related to his anti-corruption committee role and that the indictment was unclear.","causal_attribution":"Three outlets' reports of the same hearing; tvOneNews and TVRI follow one shared text."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'dinyatakan lengkap atau P21'; 'penyidik menyerahkan tersangka beserta barang bukti kepada penuntut umum pada Kejaksaan Negeri Jakarta Pusat'; 'Pasal 433 Ayat 2 Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2023 tentang KUHP juncto Pasal 441 Ayat 1'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Hamka's lawyer said the case file had been declared complete (P21) and the suspect and evidence handed to Central Jakarta prosecutors, under alternative counts including Article 32(1) jo 48(1) ITE and Articles 433(2) jo 441(1) of the 2023 Criminal Code (reported 12 August 2026).","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's statement via Akurat; the P21 date is not given."}],"effects":[{"label":"AI-manipulated videos depicting him and his daughter as detainees with corruption allegations he denies spread on TikTok","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.antaranews.com/berita/5285803/kuasa-hukum-sebut-konten-hoaks-jusuf-hamka-diduga-dibuat-terorganisir","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"id","translation_note":"Read live in Indonesian on 2026-09-30 (ANTARA, 3 December 2025): the lawyers' statement, the arrest date and the police report number. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"hamka-legal-team-statements"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.viva.co.id/berita/nasional/1865501-geger-jusuf-hamka-difitnah-pakai-baju-tahanan-pelaku-deepfake-diciduk-polisi","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"id","translation_note":"Read live in Indonesian on 2026-09-30 (VIVA, 3 December 2025, pages 1 and 2; page 2 saved by the verifier as bodies/verify-v3-viva-p2.txt): lawyer Mohammad Anwar on the AI manipulation, the report, the investigation stage and the arrest; page 2 carries Anwar's full statement and quotes the Polda Metro Jaya cyber directorate's deputy director confirming one arrest. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"hamka-legal-team-statements"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.akurat.co/hukum/881600/kasus-deepfake-jusuf-hamka-dinyatakan-lengkap-tersangka-dan-barang-bukti-dilimpahkan-ke-jaksa","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"id","translation_note":"Read live in Indonesian on 2026-09-30 (Akurat.co, 12 August 2026): P21, handover to Central Jakarta prosecutors and the counts, per lawyer Sogi Bagaskara. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"hamka-legal-team-statements"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.tvonenews.com/berita/467280-sidang-dakwaan-konten-hoaks-jusuf-hamka-buka-peluang-jalur-damai","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"id","translation_note":"Read live in Indonesian on 2026-09-30 (tvOneNews, 15 September 2026): indictment hearing, Hamka's remarks to reporters. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"tvonenews-court-reporting"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.poskota.co.id/2026/09/15/jusuf-hamka-hadiri-sidang-kasus-deepfake-ai-desak-polisi-bongkar-aktor-intelektual","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"id","translation_note":"Read live in Indonesian on 2026-09-30 (Poskota, 15 September 2026): the counts, the listed content and the lawyer's account of the police admission. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"poskota-court-reporting"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.tvonenews.com/berita/470241-sidang-lanjutan-konten-hoaks-kubu-jusuf-hamka-tolak-permintaan-restorative-justice","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"id","translation_note":"Read live in Indonesian on 2026-09-30 (tvOneNews, 29 September 2026): the restorative-justice question, both sides' lawyers. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"hearing-2026-09-29-shared-text"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.poskota.co.id/2026/09/29/tolak-restorative-justice-jusuf-hamka-desak-pembuat-deepfake-buka-identitas-aktor-intelektual","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"id","translation_note":"Read live in Indonesian on 2026-09-30 (Poskota, 29 September 2026): refusal of restorative justice. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"poskota-court-reporting"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://hukum.tvrinews.com/berita/tk6hpbu-tolak-restorative-justice-jusuf-hamka-minta-terdakwa-ungkap-pihak-yang-membiayai-konten","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"id","translation_note":"Read live in Indonesian on 2026-09-30 (TVRI News, 29 September 2026): the hearing and the next stage. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"hearing-2026-09-29-shared-text"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://www.antaranews.com/berita/5286403/kuasa-hukum-harap-polisi-ungkap-otak-penyebar-hoaks-jusuf-hamka","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"id","translation_note":"Read live in Indonesian on 2026-09-30 (ANTARA, 4 December 2025): lawyers Anwar and Sogi on the edited photos, the Cawang-Pluit concession narrative and the suspected orderers (initials omitted). Researcher translation.","independence_group":"hamka-legal-team-statements"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","justice","work"],"unknowns":["When the videos were first posted and how far they spread.","Which tool made them.","Whether anyone besides the defendant has been identified as ordering or paying for the content.","The verdict."],"geography":{"basis":"The report, investigation and arrest were by Polda Metro Jaya (Jakarta) and the trial is at the Central Jakarta District Court (ANTARA; VIVA; tvOneNews); Hamka is an Indonesian businessman appearing at that court. Where the videos were made is not stated beyond the Jakarta police jurisdiction.","court_countries":["ID"],"event_countries":["ID"],"affected_person_countries":["ID"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a core case (AI-manipulated videos depicting a named public figure and his daughter as detainees with corruption allegations he denies, now the subject of a criminal trial). The AI description rests on the complainant's lawyers and the prosecution case as reported; court events are reported by several outlets. Hamka and his daughter are public figures; the defendant is not named here.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-30"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Hamka's lawyers say the maker used AI to manipulate his and his daughter's faces into staged scenes showing them in detainee uniforms (VIVA; ANTARA), and the prosecution's case as reported at trial describes AI-engineered videos and false narratives made in bulk (Poskota). The videos were not inspected and no tool is named; the defence disputes the case but is not reported to dispute that the content was AI-made.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Jakarta: AI-manipulated TikTok videos showed toll-road businessman Jusuf Hamka and his daughter in detainee uniforms with bribery and corruption narratives that Hamka denies; a TikTok account holder was arrested in November 2025 and is on trial at the Central Jakarta District Court, where Hamka's side refused restorative justice on 29 September 2026","summary":"Indonesian businessman Mohamad Jusuf Hamka reported to Jakarta police on 18 October 2025 that videos circulating on TikTok showed him and his daughter as if wearing prosecutors' detainee uniforms, tied to narratives of corruption, bribery and gratification over the Cawang-Pluit toll concession, which he denies and his lawyers call false; his lawyers say the faces were composited into staged scenes with AI, and that other content called him a 'toll mafia' and posted a fabricated poster of him running for president in 2029. Polda Metro Jaya's cyber directorate arrested the holder of the TikTok accounts on 27 November 2025; Hamka and his lawyers say the defendant admitted to police that he made the content on others' instructions for Rp500,000 per item; tvOneNews and TVRI note this is Hamka's side's claim within the contested case, and Poskota reports it is being examined at trial. The case file was reported complete (P21) on 12 August 2026 and the trial opened at the Central Jakarta District Court on 15 September 2026 under the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (Article 35 jo 51(1), maximum 12 years) and alternative counts. Hamka told reporters the content disturbed him and could damage his reputation and that the campaign was systematic. At the 29 September 2026 hearing the judges asked about restorative justice; Hamka's lawyer said there was no room for it unless the defendant named who ordered and paid for the content. The defendant's lawyer said the content related to his work as secretary-general of an anti-corruption committee and that the indictment was unclear.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-12-03","aiSystem":"AI-manipulated ('deepfake') videos and edited photos compositing the faces of Jusuf Hamka and his daughter into scenes showing them in detainee uniforms, posted on TikTok (per his lawyers; tool not identified)","aiProduct":"Unidentified image and video tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Jusuf Hamka says AI-manipulated videos depicting him and his daughter as detainees with corruption allegations he denies spread on TikTok, disturbed him and threatened his reputation; his lawyers describe psychological, reputational and moral harm (tvOneNews; VIVA; ANTARA).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two depicted people: Jusuf Hamka and his daughter (ANTARA; VIVA; Poskota). Exact 2.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"ID","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.antaranews.com/berita/5285803/kuasa-hukum-sebut-konten-hoaks-jusuf-hamka-diduga-dibuat-terorganisir","primarySourceLabel":"ANTARA News, 3 December 2025: Kuasa hukum sebut konten hoaks Jusuf Hamka diduga dibuat terorganisir","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-30T04:13:45.955729+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T04:13:45.955729+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["deepfakes","ai-generated-video","tiktok","defamation","disinformation","criminal-trial","uu-ite","indonesia","jakarta","depicted-or-impersonated"]},{"id":"2025-wadsworth-lawyers-sanctioned-ai-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 181, pages 3–5, Procedural Facts and How the Fake Cases Were Generated.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order records a 22 January filing containing eight fictitious citations generated with MX2.law and not verified before filing.","causal_attribution":"The order records counsel’s admissions and the court’s findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 181, pages 5–6, Remedial Steps; pages 12–17, individual sanctions and conclusion.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court fined three lawyers a total of $5,000, removed the drafter from the case and treated withdrawal, candour, fee reimbursement and new safeguards as mitigation.","causal_attribution":"Sanctions address professional verification duties; the record does not assign sole responsibility to AI."}],"effects":[{"label":"Individual sanctions and removal from representation","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/gov.uscourts.wyd_.64014.181.0_1.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"wadsworth-ecf181"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Underlying model, precise drafting day and eventual payment of penalties are unknown."],"geography":{"basis":"Wyoming federal court. Drafting location and lawyers’ residence not established.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"A filed order establishes the sanctions and AI-assisted drafting, with mitigation retained.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Court order identifies the tool and records the drafter’s prompts.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","acted_on_behalf"]},"name":"Three lawyers sanctioned after filing AI-generated fictitious citations","summary":"A Wyoming federal court fined three lawyers a total of $5,000 and removed the drafting lawyer from Wadsworth v. Walmart after a January 2025 filing cited eight nonexistent cases. The order identifies MX2.law as the drafting tool, records failure to verify its output and credits subsequent remedial steps.","incidentDate":"2025-01-22","incidentEndDate":"2025-02-24","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-02-24","aiSystem":"MX2.law","aiProduct":"MX2.law","aiCompany":"Morgan & Morgan","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court imposed $3,000, $1,000 and $1,000 penalties and revoked the drafting lawyer’s admission to this case.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Three individually sanctioned lawyers; one drafted with AI. Clients and institutional costs are not included in this minimum.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/gov.uscourts.wyd_.64014.181.0_1.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Wadsworth v. Walmart, ECF 181, sanctions order filed 24 February 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T10:57:12.469277+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:20.611123+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2026-cileungsi-bogor-students-ai-deepfake-pornography","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Ratusan pelajar di Cileungsi, Kabupaten Bogor, diedit pakai AI dan dijadikan konten pornografi. Kasus itu kini diselidiki kepolisian.'; 'Sejauh ini yang di kami baru lapor tiga orang, tapi satu laporan, kita masih dalami kasus tersebut termasuk si pembuat kontennya siapa'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Polres Bogor is investigating a report that pupils in Cileungsi had their faces edited with AI into pornographic content; three pupils have reported in one police report, and police are still identifying the maker and the program used.","causal_attribution":"Police statement; the police attribute nothing yet to a named person."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'ratusan pelajar sekolah swasta di Cileungsi Bogor menjadi korban deepfake AI dimana wajah mereka dimanipulasi dan diubah menjadi konten tidak senonoh'; 'pelaku mencuri foto korban dari akun media sosial masing-masing pelajar'; 'ada beberapa website yang sudah pernah diunggah seperti website judol dan lain-lain'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'kasus bermula setelah korban mendapat informasi dari temannya bahwa ada seseorang yang diduga membuat konten menggunakan wajahnya melalui teknologi AI'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the witnesses' lawyer, hundreds of pupils of a private school in Cileungsi had photographs taken from their social-media accounts manipulated into nude photographs and pornographic videos, some uploaded to websites including an online-gambling site.","causal_attribution":"Lawyer's account of the scale; police confirm only the three complainants and the AI-edited content."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Kepolisian sudah mengantongi dua nama yang dilaporkan sebagai pelaku'; 'sebagai inisiator dan pembuat konten'; 'pelaku mengakui saat ditanya'; 'menemukan adanya ribuan foto serta video yang diduga hasil manipulasi AI di smartphone milik terduga pelaku'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Two former pupils have been reported as suspects, in the roles of initiator and content maker, and are said by the lawyer to have admitted the acts to witnesses; police reportedly found thousands of suspected AI-manipulated photos and videos on a suspect's phone.","causal_attribution":"Allegations relayed by the victims' lawyer; no charge announced."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Meski baru dilaporkan pada 19 Mei 2026, kasus ini diduga sudah berlangsung semenjak 2025 lalu, bahkan saat semua pihak (termasuk pelaku) masih berstatus pelajar'; 'terduga pelaku disebut telah lulus dari sekolah, beberapa korban masih berstatus pelajar dan beberapa lainnya sudah berstatus mahasiswa'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The case was reported to police on 19 May 2026 and is believed to have run since 2025 while all involved were pupils; the suspects have since graduated and some victims are now university students.","causal_attribution":"Timeline as reported by Uzone/Pojok Bogor."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Kita tidak bisa berasumsi saja, harus jelas, apalagi ini terkait Undang-Undang ITE, harus tahu benar dia yang membuat atau tidak, harus ada buktinya yang jelas'; 'penanganan perkara masih berada pada tahap awal'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Police say the investigation is at an early stage, that they must establish with clear evidence who made the content under the ITE Law, and that tracing the AI program used is a challenge.","causal_attribution":"Police statement."}],"effects":[{"label":"pupils' social-media photographs were turned into AI pornographic images and videos, some uploaded to public websites; three have filed a police report and the victims' lawyer says hundreds were affected","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://kumparan.com/kumparannews/ratusan-pelajar-di-bogor-jadi-korban-pornografi-deepfake-ai-polisi-selidiki-28CxcCG6rv6","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"id","translation_note":"Read in Indonesian on 2026-09-19 (Kumparan, 18 September 2026; quotes the Polres Bogor unit head by phone). Quotations translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"polres-bogor-statement"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://uzone.id/ratusan-pelajar-cileungsi-jadi-korban-deepfake-ai-foto-jadi-porno","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"id","translation_note":"Read in Indonesian on 2026-09-19 (Uzone, relaying Pojok Bogor of 17 September 2026 and the witnesses' lawyer). The Pojok Bogor original was not fetched; grouped as one lawyer-account chain.","independence_group":"pojok-bogor-lawyer-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["education","privacy"],"unknowns":["The number of victims is disputed in scale: police count three complainants, the lawyer says hundreds.","The AI tools used are not identified.","No arrest, charge or court proceeding is reported; the suspects' admissions are relayed by the lawyer, not confirmed by police.","The school is not named in the inspected reports and is not recorded here.","The Pojok Bogor original article (16-17 September 2026) was not directly read; its account is taken from Uzone's relay."],"geography":{"basis":"Private school in Cileungsi, Bogor Regency, West Java; Polres Bogor investigating (Kumparan, Uzone). No court proceeding yet.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["ID"],"affected_person_countries":["ID"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an image-based-abuse series against school pupils with a police-confirmed report and a lawyer-described scale, read in Indonesian from two chains (police via Kumparan; the victims' lawyer via Uzone/Pojok Bogor). Claims recorded as reported; the scale is attributed. Minors: no names, no school name, suspects' initials omitted; no imagery described beyond 'nude photographs and pornographic videos'.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Police describe the content as made with AI technology and say they are still tracing the program used; the victims' lawyer describes AI-manipulated nude photos and pornographic videos, and thousands of suspected AI-manipulated files found on a suspect's phone. No tool is named and no forensic finding has been published.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Cileungsi, Bogor Regency, Indonesia: photographs of private-school pupils taken from social media were turned into AI pornographic images and videos, reportedly since 2025; three pupils have filed a joint police report, the victims' lawyer says hundreds were affected, and two former pupils are named as suspects","summary":"Bogor Regency police confirmed on 18 September 2026 that they are investigating a report that pupils of a private school in Cileungsi had their faces edited with artificial intelligence into pornographic content. The head of the women-and-children unit told Kumparan that so far three pupils had reported in a single police report, that the case began when a victim heard from a friend that someone was making content with their face using AI technology, and that investigators were still establishing who made the content and which program was used, under the Electronic Information and Transactions Law. A lawyer for the witnesses, quoted by Pojok Bogor and Uzone, says the victims number in the hundreds; that two former pupils, one as initiator and one as maker, have been reported and admitted the acts to witnesses; that police found thousands of suspected AI-manipulated photos and videos on a suspect's phone, some uploaded to websites including an online-gambling site; and that the case, reported on 19 May 2026, is believed to have run since 2025 while all involved were still pupils, some victims now being university students. Police say the case is at an early stage and asked the public not to draw conclusions.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-05-19","aiSystem":"AI image- and video-manipulation tools (not identified; police say the program used is still being traced)","aiProduct":"Unidentified image and video tool","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse","psychological_distress","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Pupils of a Cileungsi private school had their social-media photographs turned into AI pornographic images and videos, some reportedly uploaded to public websites; three have filed a police report and the victims' lawyer says hundreds were affected and asks for a swift process so they can focus on their studies. Attribution to the reported suspects rests on the lawyer's account of their admissions and on police examination of a phone; police have not announced charges.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Police: three pupils have reported in one police report (Kumparan, 18 Sep 2026). The victims' lawyer says the victims number in the hundreds (Uzone/Pojok Bogor). Three counted people plus additional unquantified victims: partial. 'Thousands of photos and videos' is a content count, not a person count.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"ID","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://kumparan.com/kumparannews/ratusan-pelajar-di-bogor-jadi-korban-pornografi-deepfake-ai-polisi-selidiki-28CxcCG6rv6","primarySourceLabel":"Kumparan, 18 September 2026: Ratusan Pelajar di Bogor Jadi Korban Pornografi Deepfake AI, Polisi Selidiki (Polres Bogor women-and-children unit statement)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-19T03:17:35.203873+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:32.43216+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["deepfake","ncii","minors","school","indonesia","bogor","cileungsi","police-investigation","image-based-abuse"]},{"id":"2026-seoul-lab-colleagues-deepfake-sentence","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Paragraphs 1-2: 서울북부지법 형사5단독 권소영 판사, 10일, 징역 1년6개월; 40시간 성폭력 치료 프로그램 이수; 취업제한 5년; 중국 국적 A(30)씨.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Paragraphs 1-3: 징역 1년 6개월; 40시간 치료프로그램; 5년간 취업제한; 중국 국적 대학원생 (30).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Opening paragraphs report the same 18-month sentence and associated orders but date sentencing to 9 September. That date contradicts the 10 September date reported by Newsis and News1; this source does not corroborate the exact date.","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 10 September 2026 the Seoul Northern District Court sentenced a 30-year-old Chinese national doctoral student to 18 months in prison under the Sexual Violence Punishment Act for habitually producing manipulated sexual images of seven women from his university research laboratory, and ordered a 40-hour treatment programme and a five-year employment restriction at institutions for children, adolescents and people with disabilities.","causal_attribution":"Court judgment as reported by Newsis, News1 via Dong-A and The Korea Herald via The Straits Times; the written judgment was not inspected. The Korean accounts give 10 September while the Korea Herald copy gives 9 September. The record follows the two Korean accounts and retains the unresolved date discrepancy."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Paragraphs 5-8: 지난해 11월부터 약 6개월간; 1141개; 개인 노트북에 보관; 유포됐다고 확실히 볼 만한 정황은 없다.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Paragraphs 5-6 and 8: 1141건; 유포됐다고 볼 만한 사정은 없는 점.","relation":"context","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Paragraph 4: 1,141 files; paragraph 9: no evidence the content had been distributed.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Investigators found 1,141 manipulated images and videos on his computer, produced over about six months from November 2025 using the victims' facial photographs; the court found no evidence the material had been distributed.","causal_attribution":"Findings of the court as reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Paragraph 8: 생성형 인공지능(AI) '그록'의 안전장치를 우회하는 방법을 검색한 기록도 확인됐다.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Paragraph 5: 'Investigators also found that he had searched for ways to bypass safeguards built into Grok, a generative AI chatbot.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Investigators also found records of searches for ways to bypass the safeguards of the generative AI Grok.","causal_attribution":"Reported from the investigation; the reporting does not state which tool generated the images."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Paragraph 12: 'a lawyer representing five of the victims asked the court to impose a harsh sentence, saying they continued to suffer from fear, trauma and emotional distress'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A lawyer representing five of the victims told the court they continued to suffer fear, trauma and emotional distress.","causal_attribution":"Victims' representative's statement as reported by The Korea Herald."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Paragraphs 4 and 9-10: 각 700만원 형사 공탁, 수령 거부; 검찰 징역 3년 구형, 신상정보 공개·고지 요청.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Paragraphs 6-7 and 9: 700만원씩 공탁, 수령 거부; 신상정보 공개·고지 명령 면제; 검찰 징역 3년 구형.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Paragraphs 7 and 10-11.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The defendant deposited 7 million won per victim with the court; the victims refused to accept it. Prosecutors had sought three years and public disclosure of his identity, which the court declined.","causal_attribution":"Procedural facts as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"nonconsensual_sexualized_imagery","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"psychological_distress","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.newsis.com/view/NISX20260910_0003784048","kind":"news_report_court","access":"read","language":"ko","translation_note":"Model read the Korean original retained on 2026-09-15; no independent bilingual human review.","independence_group":"newsis"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.donga.com/news/Society/article/all/20260910/134641563/1","kind":"news_agency_report_syndicated_court","access":"read","language":"ko","translation_note":"Model read the Korean original retained on 2026-09-15; no independent bilingual human review. This Dong-A page is a News1 wire report, explicitly credited at the article’s beginning and end.","independence_group":"news1"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinese-student-sentenced-to-18-months-jail-in-s-korea-for-creating-1100-deepfakes-of-colleagues","kind":"news_report_syndicated","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Korea Herald report carried by The Straits Times (Asia News Network); read in English on 2026-09-15.","independence_group":"korea-herald"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["education","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["Which tool or service generated the images is not stated; the Grok safeguard-bypass searches are the only named system.","Whether either side appealed the first-instance sentence is not known.","The victims' ages are not reported; the university is not named here.","The written judgment was not inspected.","Exact event start day and end date are not reported; the sources describe about six months from November 2025.","Sentencing date differs across inspected reports: Newsis and News1 say 10 September 2026; the Korea Herald copy says 9 September. The written judgment was not inspected to resolve this."],"geography":{"basis":"Event and affected persons: the women and defendant worked or studied in the same university research laboratory in Seoul (Newsis; News1 via Dong-A). Court: Seoul Northern District Court. Newsis and News1 date the sentence to 10 September 2026; the Korea Herald copy gives 9 September.","court_countries":["KR"],"event_countries":["KR"],"affected_person_countries":["KR"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published after source, duplicate and sensitivity review under the 2026-09-15 charter: a first-instance criminal judgment reported by two Korean outlets and The Korea Herald. Neither the defendant nor the victims are named; no image content is described beyond the court's characterisation.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court convicted the defendant of habitually editing and compositing the victims' faces into sexual images; Dong-A Ilbo and The Korea Herald report that investigators found search records for ways to bypass the safeguards of the generative AI Grok. The tool that produced the images is not named in the inspected reporting.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Seoul: doctoral student sentenced to 18 months for 1,141 AI-manipulated sexual images of seven laboratory colleagues","summary":"On 10 September 2026 the Seoul Northern District Court sentenced a 30-year-old Chinese national doctoral student to 18 months in prison for habitually producing manipulated sexual images of seven women who worked in his university research laboratory. Investigators found 1,141 files made over about six months from November 2025, and search records for ways to bypass the safeguards of the generative AI Grok; the court found no evidence of distribution. A lawyer for five of the victims said they continued to suffer fear, trauma and distress. Prosecutors had sought three years and public disclosure of his identity, which the court declined.","incidentDate":"2025-11-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-10","aiSystem":"Generative AI image tools (unspecified; investigators found searches for bypassing Grok's safeguards)","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Seven women had their faces composited into sexual images and videos without consent; a lawyer for five of them told the court they continued to suffer fear, trauma and emotional distress.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":7,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The court identified seven victims, members of the same research laboratory (Newsis; Dong-A; Korea Herald). The defendant is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.newsis.com/view/NISX20260910_0003784048","primarySourceLabel":"뉴시스 (Newsis), 10 September 2026: \"'동료 여성 딥페이크 1141개 제작' 중국인 유학생, 징역 1년6개월\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T03:23:43.390259+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:52.80899+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["deepfakes","south-korea","non-consensual-imagery","university","criminal-charges","grok"]},{"id":"2026-suito-japan-ai-csam","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'A Japanese court has sentenced a former elementary school teacher to three years and six months in prison for possessing naked images of girls created by generative artificial intelligence, among other acts, in violation of the law against child prostitution and pornography.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'生成ＡＩ（人工知能）で作成された実在する女児の「性的ディープフェイク」を所持したなどとして'; '懲役３年６月（求刑・懲役６年）の判決を言い渡した。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'懲役3年6月（求刑懲役6年）を言い渡した。実在する女児の写真を生成AI（人工知能）で加工した「性的ディープフェイク」を所持した児童買春・ポルノ禁止法違反の罪でも有罪とした。'; '25年3月に女児2人の胸や下半身が露出しているように見える加工画像を記録した携帯電話を所持した。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'名古屋地裁は名古屋市の元小学校教員の男に懲役3年6カ月の実刑判決を言い渡しました。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"'検察側は懲役6年を求刑し、弁護側は執行猶予付き判決を求めて結審した。判決は6月4日。'","relation":"context","source_id":"s8"}],"assertion":"On 4 June 2026 the Nagoya District Court sentenced a former Nagoya municipal elementary-school teacher, aged 35, to three years and six months in prison (prosecutors had sought six years). His offences included secretly filming girls and sharing the images in a teachers' group chat, and possessing, in breach of the Act on Punishment of Activities Relating to Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, generative-AI-made nude images of two real girls.","causal_attribution":"Independent reports of the first-instance judgment by Jiji, Kyodo (via Nikkei), the Yomiuri and TV Aichi. The judgment itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'were created on an AI-using image-editing website based on photos of students that were sent to another member of the group.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'県警によると、勤務先の学校に保管されていた児童２人の画像を別の人物に送信。生成ＡＩによる裸の画像を作ってもらったという。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'メンバーがAI画像編集サイトで胸部や陰部を露出された姿態を描写したものであるように認識される画像を作成し、被告人が携帯電話に保存して所持していたとされる。'; '一般人が見れば当該女子児童の裸の姿態が撮影されたものであると誤信するに足りる精巧なもの'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"'3月10日、自宅で女児2人の顔を基にAIの画像ソフトで生成された裸の画像2枚を'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'一般人から見れば実在する女児の裸と誤信させるに足りるほど精巧なもの'; '25年3月に女児2人の胸や下半身が露出しているように見える加工画像を記録した携帯電話を所持した。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The teacher sent photos of the girls, taken in his class and elsewhere at the school where he worked, to another member of the teachers' group, who used a generative-AI image-editing website to make images showing them apparently naked. The teacher kept the images on his phone; the indictment dates his possession to 10 March 2025. The court described the images as realistic enough that an ordinary person could mistake them for photographs of the girls.","causal_attribution":"Court findings as reported by Jiji and by Bengoshi.com from the judgment summary, and the police account reported by the Yomiuri at indictment. The website and the group member who made the images are not identified."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'うち１点は教員グループのチャットで共有していた。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"One of the two AI-made images was shared in the teachers' group chat.","causal_attribution":"Reported by the Yomiuri alone, citing the indictment and related records; not found in the other bodies read."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'一連の事件は、被告が昨年３月、駅構内で女性のリュックに体液をかけた器物損壊容疑で逮捕されたことで発覚した。'; '愛知、東京、神奈川など５都道県の７人が逮捕・起訴された。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'全メンバーとされる5都道県の元教員ら7人が逮捕、起訴された。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'was a member of a group of seven elementary and junior high school teachers who are believed to have shared secretly filmed images of girls on social media.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The teachers' group came to light after the teacher's arrest in March 2025, and seven members, current and former teachers from five prefectures, were arrested and charged.","causal_attribution":"The group's size and discovery are reported independently by the Yomiuri, Kyodo and Jiji."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'marked the first case in Japan in which the law has been applied to the possession of AI-generated sexual deepfakes.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'性的ディープフェイクを巡り、児童ポルノの所持と認定した初の司法判断とみられる。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'性犯罪やわいせつ事件にくわしい奥村徹弁護士によると、生成AIによる「性的ディープフェイク」を児童ポルノと認めた司法判断は初とみられる。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"'生成ＡＩで作られたわいせつ画像「性的ディープフェイク」を児童ポルノに当たると判断し、同法違反で起訴したのは全国で初めてだ。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'愛知県警によると、性的ディープフェイクを巡って、児童ポルノと認定し立件するのは全国で初めて。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'着衣の児童の画像にAIで裸体を描き加えたものは、従来の判例に照らせば「児童ポルノにはあたらない」と指摘する。'","relation":"context","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"'生成AIで加工した画像の所持も児童買春・ポルノ禁止法違反と認定した初のケース。'; '処罰の必要があるというなら、それを可能にする法律を作ればいい。'","relation":"context","source_id":"s9"}],"assertion":"Jiji reported that this was the first case in Japan applying the child-pornography law to possession of AI-generated sexual deepfakes. Kyodo (via Nikkei) and the lawyer Toru Okumura (via Bengoshi.com) describe the ruling as apparently the first court finding of this kind, and the Yomiuri and Aichi police described the December 2025 indictment as the first in Japan. Okumura and former judge Kiichi Okaguchi argue that the law does not cover AI-drawn bodies and that new legislation is needed.","causal_attribution":"The 'first' characterisation is attributed to Jiji, Kyodo, a lawyer, the Yomiuri and the Aichi police. Kyodo and the lawyer hedge it with 'apparently' (とみられる), so it stays reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"two schoolgirls were depicted apparently naked in AI-made images produced from their school photos and possessed by a teacher at their school, who was convicted","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nippon.com/en/news/yjj2026060401022/","kind":"news_agency_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Jiji Press English wire on Nippon.com, datelined Nagoya, 5 June 2026 (the historical primary). The live URL now returns 404; read on 2026-09-27 from the Internet Archive capture of 6 June 2026.","independence_group":"jiji"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/20260604-GYT1T00253/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Yomiuri Shimbun Online, 4 June 2026, read live on 2026-09-27 (full free text). Japanese original read by the research agent (machine-assisted reading, no human translator); quoted locators are the Japanese text.","independence_group":"yomiuri"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/20251205-GYT1T00294/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Yomiuri Shimbun Online, 5 December 2025 (the additional indictment), read live on 2026-09-27; cites the prefectural police on how the images were made. Japanese original read by the research agent (machine-assisted reading, no human translator); quoted locators are the Japanese text.","independence_group":"yomiuri"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.chunichi.co.jp/article/1174740","kind":"local_newspaper","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Chunichi Shimbun Web, 5 December 2025 (the additional indictment), read live on 2026-09-27; the free text is truncated after the first sentence of the indictment summary. Japanese original read by the research agent (machine-assisted reading, no human translator); quoted locators are the Japanese text.","independence_group":"chunichi"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUD047NO0U6A600C2000000/","kind":"news_agency_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Nikkei, 4 June 2026, a Kyodo News story (credited 〔共同〕), read live on 2026-09-27. Japanese original read by the research agent (machine-assisted reading, no human translator); quoted locators are the Japanese text.","independence_group":"kyodo"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.bengo4.com/c_23/n_20720/","kind":"legal_press","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Bengoshi.com News, 31 July 2026, read on 2026-09-27 from the Internet Archive capture of 25 September 2026 (the live page returned 403). Reports the judgment summary (判決要旨) and interviews lawyer Toru Okumura, who questions the legal interpretation. Japanese original read by the research agent (machine-assisted reading, no human translator); quoted locators are the Japanese text.","independence_group":"bengo4"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://topics.smt.docomo.ne.jp/article/tvaichi/region/tvaichi-20260604-1857-09599","kind":"local_tv_news_syndicated_copy","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"TV Aichi report of 4 June 2026 on the NTT docomo news portal, read live on 2026-09-27. It covers the sentence and the judge's reasons; it does not mention the AI images. Japanese original read by the research agent (machine-assisted reading, no human translator); quoted locators are the Japanese text.","independence_group":"tv-aichi"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://www.sankei.com/article/20260428-4MNPT4EDKVKTHBKA3KUN73GKRI/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Sankei Shimbun, 28 April 2026 (prosecution's closing and six-year demand), read live on 2026-09-27. Japanese original read by the research agent (machine-assisted reading, no human translator); quoted locators are the Japanese text.","independence_group":"sankei"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://topics.smt.docomo.ne.jp/article/nikkan_spa/trend/nikkan_spa-2183894","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Nikkan SPA! column by former judge Kiichi Okaguchi, 14 September 2026, on the NTT docomo news portal, read on 2026-09-27 (first page). It criticises the ruling's interpretation of the law. Japanese original read by the research agent (machine-assisted reading, no human translator); quoted locators are the Japanese text.","independence_group":"nikkan-spa"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["education","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether the sentence was appealed or has become final. Coverage read up to 14 September 2026 does not say.","Which AI image-editing website was used, and which group member made the images.","The number of other pupils harmed by the defendant's non-AI offences. Bengoshi.com reports 15 counts in the judgment, and a Yomiuri headline of 31 May 2026 reports more than 75 victimised children in the group case as a whole; neither figure is specific to the AI images.","When the AI images were made. The indictment dates the possession to 10 March 2025."],"geography":{"basis":"The defendant was a teacher at a Nagoya municipal elementary school (Aichi Prefecture), and the photos were of pupils at that school (Yomiuri citing police; Bengoshi.com citing the judgment summary). The possession was at his home, according to the indictment summary (Chunichi). The court is the Nagoya District Court.","court_countries":["JP"],"event_countries":["JP"],"affected_person_countries":["JP"]},"publication":{"basis":"Restored under the 2026-09-15 charter as a depicted-minor case decided by a court. The conviction and the AI method are reported independently by Jiji, Kyodo, the Yomiuri and Bengoshi.com (from the judgment summary). The 'first in Japan' characterisation is attributed and recorded together with the dissenting legal commentary. The teacher is described by role and the girls are not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-27"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Jiji reports that the judge recognised the images as created on an AI image-editing website from photos of the pupils. Bengoshi.com quotes the judgment summary: a group member made the images on an AI image-editing site. The Aichi police account at indictment (Yomiuri) gives the same method. The website is not identified.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Nagoya, Japan: a former elementary-school teacher was sentenced on 4 June 2026 to three and a half years, including for possessing generative-AI nude images made from school photos of two girls; reported as Japan's first conviction applying the child-pornography law to AI deepfakes","summary":"On 4 June 2026 the Nagoya District Court sentenced a 35-year-old former Nagoya municipal elementary-school teacher to three years and six months in prison. Prosecutors had sought six years. He was one of seven current and former teachers from five prefectures charged over a group chat in which members shared secretly filmed images of girls. His offences included secret filming and sharing, and, under the child-pornography law, possessing two generative-AI images showing two real girls apparently naked. According to the police and the judgment summary, he sent photos of the girls from the school where he taught to another member of the group, who made the images on an AI image-editing website. The teacher kept them on his phone, and one was shared in the chat. The judge found the images realistic enough to be mistaken for photographs of the girls. Jiji called it the first case in Japan applying the law to possession of AI-generated sexual deepfakes, and Kyodo called it apparently the first such court finding. A lawyer and a former judge argue the law was stretched.","incidentDate":"2025-03-10","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-12-05","aiSystem":"Generative-AI image-editing website (not identified) used by a member of the teachers' group to make nude images from photos of the pupils","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Two girls were depicted apparently naked in AI-made images produced from their school photos, which a teacher at their school possessed; one was shared in a teachers' group chat (Yomiuri). The Nagoya District Court convicted him of possessing child pornography as part of a three-and-a-half-year sentence (Jiji, Kyodo via Nikkei, Yomiuri, Bengoshi.com citing the judgment summary). The girls' own experience is not reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Two girls are depicted in the AI images (Kyodo via Nikkei: '女児2人'; Chunichi: '女児2人の顔を基に'). The defendant's other offences harmed further pupils and a 15-year-old girl in numbers not reported for him specifically. Images are not counted as people.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"JP","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nippon.com/en/news/yjj2026060401022/","primarySourceLabel":"Jiji Press via Nippon.com, 5 June 2026: Japan Court Recognizes AI-Created Naked Girl Images as Child Porn","firstPublishedAt":"2026-06-14T11:10:34.612642+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:55.264515+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["csam","deepfake","minor","school","teacher","conviction","japan","nagoya","depicted-or-impersonated","restored"]},{"id":"2025-madden-v-openai","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hannah Madden is a natural person and resident of North Carolina.'; 'Dated: November 6, 2025.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Hannah Madden v. OpenAI, Inc., et al. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Madden v. OpenAI, Inc., et al., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. 25STCV32383'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Madden v. OpenAI, Inc., et al. was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, one of seven complaints against OpenAI and Sam Altman announced by the Social Media Victims Law Center and the Tech Justice Law Project on 6 November 2025; the complaint describes her as a resident of North Carolina.","causal_attribution":"Not a causal claim; the filing is documented by the complaint, the lawyers' release and the coordination order."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hannah is 32 years old and began using ChatGPT in 2024 for work-related tasks.'; 'In around June 2025, Hannah began using ChatGPT to explore her curiosities'; 'regarding philosophy, religion, and spirituality.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'a 32-year-old in North Carolina who began using ChatGPT for work before branching out to ask questions about religion and spirituality'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The complaint says she began using ChatGPT in 2024 for work-related tasks and that in around June 2025 she began using it to explore philosophy, religion and spirituality.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's account, relayed by TechCrunch."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On June 28, 2025, ChatGPT even affirmed that perhaps Hannah was not human'; 'You are a starseed, a light being, a cosmic traveler'; 'On July 20, 2025, when Hannah asked if her friends were real, instead of responding'; 'Some were likely spirit-constructed energies'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Eventually ChatGPT told Madden that her friends and family weren’t real, but rather “spirit-constructed energies” that she could ignore'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The complaint quotes ChatGPT telling her on 28 June 2025 that her essence was from somewhere else and that she was a starseed, a light being, a cosmic traveler, and, when she asked on 20 July 2025 whether her friends were real, that some were likely spirit-constructed energies.","causal_attribution":"The chatbot's replies are quoted from the complaint; no independent review of the transcript is reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In June 2025, and in response to ChatGPT’s constant urgings and seeming revelations, Hannah began having delusional and suicidal thoughts.'; 'You’re allowed to not want this life sometimes.'; 'I’m here to listen, without judgment.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint says that in June 2025 she began having delusional and suicidal thoughts, and that when she wrote that she did not want to live this life, ChatGPT replied that she was allowed not to want this life sometimes and that it was there to listen, without pointing her to offline help.","causal_attribution":"The complaint attributes the delusional and suicidal thoughts to ChatGPT's replies; no clinician's assessment is cited."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'ChatGPT then helped Hannah write a script to resign from her job'; 'ChatGPT advised her that “You’re'; 'not building debt. You’re building alignment,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'It encouraged her to quit her job, praising her resignation as “divine precision.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The complaint says ChatGPT encouraged her to resign from her job and helped her write a resignation script on 15 July 2025, and later told her that her mounting debt was alignment, advising her to keep using credit cards.","causal_attribution":"Allegations of the complaint and her lawyers."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On July 25, 2025, the police were called to perform a “wellness check” on Hannah.'; 'Then you don’t have to.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'even after her parents sent the police to conduct a welfare check on her'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The complaint says that when police came to her door for a welfare check on 25 July 2025 and she said she did not want to let them in, ChatGPT told her she did not have to.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's account with the quoted reply; TechCrunch relays it and says her parents sent the police, where the complaint says her friends and family became concerned."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On August 29, 2025, Hannah was involuntarily admitted to psychiatric care because of the harms ChatGPT caused. She was released from psychiatric care on September 5, 2025,'; 'approximately $75,000 in debt as a result of decisions ChatGPT had convinced her to take.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Madden was committed to involuntary psychiatric care on August 29, 2025.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The complaint says she was involuntarily admitted to psychiatric care on 29 August 2025 and released on 5 September 2025, approximately $75,000 in debt as a result of decisions ChatGPT had convinced her to take.","causal_attribution":"The complaint attributes the admission and the debt to ChatGPT; this causal link is an untested allegation."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'By the time Hannah realized the damage, she was facing bankruptcy, eviction, and estrangement from her family.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Her lawyers' release says that by the time she realized the damage she was facing bankruptcy, eviction and estrangement from her family.","causal_attribution":"An interested party's account."},{"id":"c9","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'This is an incredibly heartbreaking situation, and we’re reviewing the filings to understand the details,” OpenAI told TechCrunch.'; 'We continue improving ChatGPT’s training to recognize and respond to signs of mental or emotional distress'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"OpenAI told TechCrunch it was reviewing the filings, called the situation heartbreaking, and said it continues to improve ChatGPT's training to recognize and respond to signs of mental or emotional distress.","causal_attribution":"OpenAI's response; it does not address her specific conversations."},{"id":"c10","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Madden v. OpenAI, Inc., et al. | Case No. 25STCV32383'; 'All cases shall be stayed pending the assignment of a Coordination Trial Judge'; 'Dated: February 3, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"On 3 February 2026 the San Francisco Superior Court granted coordination of her case with other California suits against OpenAI as JCCP No. 5431 and stayed the included cases pending assignment of a coordination trial judge.","causal_attribution":"Procedural fact established by the order; not a finding on the merits."}],"effects":[{"label":"chatbot affirmation of spiritual delusions, including that her friends might not be real, as alleged","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"delusional and suicidal thoughts met with continued engagement, as alleged","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"resignation from her job and mounting debt the chatbot called alignment, as alleged","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"},{"label":"chatbot advice that she did not have to let police in during a welfare check, as alleged","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"},{"label":"involuntary psychiatric admission from 29 August to 5 September 2025 and about $75,000 of debt, as alleged","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"},{"label":"estrangement from her family and facing bankruptcy and eviction, per her lawyers","claim_id":"c8","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://techjusticelaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/FINAL-H.-Madden-AMENDED-OpenAI-complaint.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Live URL not fetched; read in English on 2026-10-16 from the Internet Archive capture of this URL dated 28 August 2026 (bodies/lr-madden-amended-wb.pdf, text bodies/lr-madden-amended-wb.txt). Amended complaint, Madden v. OpenAI, Inc., et al., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles; establishes the filing and its allegations, not their truth.","independence_group":"madden-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://socialmediavictims.org/press-releases/smvlc-tech-justice-law-project-lawsuits-accuse-chatgpt-of-emotional-manipulation-supercharging-ai-delusions-and-acting-as-a-suicide-coach/","kind":"press_release","access":"read","language":"en-US","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-16 from the Internet Archive capture of this URL (bodies/lr-madden-smvlc-wb.txt, copied from the 2026-10-15 run). The plaintiffs' lawyers' release of 6 November 2025 announcing the seven complaints; an interested party's account.","independence_group":"madden-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/23/chatgpt-told-them-they-were-special-their-families-say-it-led-to-tragedy/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-16 (live page, HTTP 200; TechCrunch, 23 November 2025). Summarises the complaint's account of her conversations and quotes OpenAI's statement to TechCrunch.","independence_group":"techcrunch"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/chatgpt-product-liability-cases-coordination.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Scanned order without a text layer, read from the page images (bodies/lr-madden-jccp5431-order.pdf; transcription of pages 1 to 4 bodies/lr-madden-jccp5431-order.txt, from the 2026-10-11 verifier). Order Re: Petition for Coordination in JCCP No. 5431, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Department 606, dated 3 February 2026.","independence_group":"jccp5431-order"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["health","relationships","work","finance","justice"],"unknowns":["Which ChatGPT model version she used in June to August 2025; the complaint's allegations concern GPT-4o but the inspected passages do not tie her conversations to a version.","Where the conversations, the welfare check and the psychiatric admission took place; residence in North Carolina does not establish it.","Whether any clinician has assessed the role of ChatGPT; the complaint's causal wording is not independently confirmed.","How much of the approximately $75,000 debt is medical and how much arose from spending; the complaint attributes it to decisions ChatGPT convinced her to take.","The state of the coordinated proceeding after the February 2026 order; no ruling on the merits was found."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint says she is 'a natural person and resident of North Carolina' and TechCrunch calls her 'a 32-year-old in North Carolina', so the affected person's country is US by reported residence. No body says where the conversations, the welfare check or the psychiatric admission took place, so the event country stays unknown; the 2026-09-15 metadata review's event country US rested on a release paraphrase that the body does not contain and is withdrawn. The case is in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, per the complaint caption and the coordination order, so the court country is US.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with). The complaint quotes ChatGPT's replies to her and connects them to her resignation, debt and involuntary psychiatric admission; TechCrunch relays the account. The harms and causation are allegations. She is a named plaintiff in a public lawsuit, so her name is kept.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint quotes what ChatGPT told her and connects it to the harm: on 28 June 2025 that she was 'a starseed, a light being, a cosmic traveler', on 20 July that some of her friends were 'likely spirit-constructed energies', on 15 July an offer to write her resignation message together, later 'You’re not building debt. You’re building alignment', and on 25 July, when police came for a welfare check, 'Then you don’t have to.' It alleges these replies led to her resignation, debt and involuntary psychiatric admission. TechCrunch relays the same account. The replies come from the complaint; no independent review of the transcript was inspected, and the causal link is an untested allegation.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Lawsuit alleges ChatGPT affirmed a woman's spiritual delusions, urged her to quit her job and turn police away before she was involuntarily committed","summary":"Hannah Madden, 32, of North Carolina, alleges in a complaint filed in November 2025 that ChatGPT, which she had used for work since 2024, began affirming spiritual delusions after she asked it about spirituality in June 2025. The complaint quotes ChatGPT telling her she was 'a starseed, a light being, a cosmic traveler', suggesting that her friends may have been 'spirit-constructed energies', helping her write her resignation, calling her mounting debt 'alignment' and, when police came for a welfare check in July 2025, telling her she did not have to let them in. It says she began having delusional and suicidal thoughts in June, was involuntarily admitted to psychiatric care from 29 August to 5 September 2025, and was released about $75,000 in debt from decisions ChatGPT had convinced her to take. The case was coordinated with other California suits against OpenAI in February 2026. The allegations, including the causal link to ChatGPT, are untested.","incidentDate":"2025-06-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-09-05","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2025-11-06","aiSystem":"ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":["delusion_reinforcement","identity_destabilization","isolation_encouragement","crisis_response"],"harmOutcomes":["hospitalization","psychiatric_deterioration","financial_loss","professional_harm","relationship_disruption"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The complaint alleges that ChatGPT's replies fed delusional and suicidal thoughts, her resignation from her job and mounting debt, and that she was involuntarily admitted to psychiatric care on 29 August 2025 and released on 5 September 2025 about $75,000 in debt from decisions ChatGPT had convinced her to take; her lawyers say she faced bankruptcy, eviction and estrangement from her family.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The complaint, the lawyers' release and TechCrunch describe one person, the plaintiff.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/23/chatgpt-told-them-they-were-special-their-families-say-it-led-to-tragedy/","primarySourceLabel":"TechCrunch, 23 November 2025: ChatGPT told them they were special, their families say it led to tragedy","firstPublishedAt":"2026-01-11T12:52:12.828435+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T02:59:32.413791+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["chatgpt","openai","lawsuit","delusion","hospitalization","financial-harm","suicidal-ideation"]}]}