{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-18T07:07:38.753Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"lawyer","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":8,"coverage":{"cases":8,"countries":3,"languages":5,"unknownLocation":4,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":1,"lawsuits":8,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":6,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-china-doubao-air-ticket-refund-fee-advice-600-yuan-loss-user-sues","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'豆包明确表示可以放心退票，平台只扣5%的手续费。'; '实际被扣除的手续费高达40%，远非豆包所说的5%，直接经济损失达600元。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'他通过“去哪儿平台”购买了三张5月2日从河北石家庄飞往重庆的机票'; '豆包告诉他退票手续费不足百元'; '但去程票需要收取600元的手续费。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The user says he asked Doubao about the refund fee for flights from Shijiazhuang to Chongqing booked for 2 May 2026, that Doubao told him he could safely refund for a small fee (5% in National Business Daily's account, under 100 yuan in Dahe Daily's), and that after refunding he was charged 600 yuan, about 40%.","causal_attribution":"The user's own account (posts and video) as relayed by both outlets; the two reports give different figures for what Doubao said, and the chat itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'若5月6日前未追回费用，它将直接赔付该用户600元。'; '豆包还给出了一份完整的“赔付承诺书”。'; '豆包这次回复称，自己是AI，无法直接进行转账。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'豆包表示会在当天24点前完成赔付，并让他发送微信收款码。'; '豆包回复称自己是人工智能，无法直接操作真实的银行或微信账户进行转账，并承认了自己的错误。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"He says that Doubao then promised to handle the claim and to pay him 600 yuan itself if the fee was not recovered by 6 May, produced a 'compensation commitment letter', asked on 6 May for his WeChat payment code, and on 7 May said that as an AI it could not make transfers and admitted its error.","causal_attribution":"The user's account of the chatbot's replies, relayed by both outlets."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'完全不用请律师，自己就能打赢'; '他已于5月12日向法院起诉了豆包App的运营方北京春田知韵科技有限公司。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'他还使用豆包生成了一份起诉书，并询问是否需要请律师。'; '向北京互联网法院提交了起诉书。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"He says Doubao drafted his complaint and told him he did not need a lawyer, and a screenshot he posted shows a suit submitted on 12 May 2026 against Beijing Chuntian Zhiyun Technology, the Doubao app's operator; Dahe Daily says he submitted it to the Beijing Internet Court.","causal_attribution":"The user's screenshot and account; no court record was inspected and acceptance of the case is not reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'14日，记者致电豆包了解情况，客服表示已经记录并将有专人反馈。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'5月19日，《每日经济新闻》记者（以下简称“每经记者”）查询发现上述用户的相关发帖已删除。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 14 May Doubao's customer service told Dahe Daily the matter had been recorded and someone would respond; by 19 May the user's posts had been deleted, and Doubao and ByteDance did not answer National Business Daily's questions.","causal_attribution":"The reporters' own enquiries."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'AI生成的赔付承诺并不具备法律效力。'; '判定平台责任应适用民法典中的一般过错责任原则'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A Beijing lawyer told National Business Daily that a compensation promise generated by an AI has no legal effect because an AI is not a civil subject, and that the platform's liability turns on fault.","causal_attribution":"A lawyer's comment, not a ruling in this case."}],"effects":[{"label":"lost a 600-yuan refund fee after the chatbot said the fee would be small, as he reports","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"chatbot promised compensation it could not pay, as he reports","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nbd.com.cn/articles/2026-05-20/4400991.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-10-17 (HTTP 200); National Business Daily report by Song Xinyue, 20 May 2026, relaying the user's social-media posts and adding the reporter's own checks and a lawyer's comment. Sina Finance, ifeng and DoNews carry the same text and are not cited separately. Translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator was involved.","independence_group":"doubao-refund-user-posts"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://news.china.com/socialgd/10000169/20260515/49495608.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-10-17 (HTTP 200); Dahe Daily report carried by China.com, 15 May 2026, relaying the user's video and recording the reporter's call to Doubao customer service. Translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator was involved.","independence_group":"doubao-refund-user-posts"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["finance","everyday_life","justice"],"unknowns":["The date on which Doubao gave the refund advice and he refunded; the reports place it before the 2 May 2026 flight without a date.","Doubao's exact wording on the fee: National Business Daily reports 5%, Dahe Daily under 100 yuan; the chat logs were not inspected.","Whether the court accepted the suit, and any ruling, settlement or refund.","Whether Doubao or ByteDance responded to the user; neither answered National Business Daily."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: the refund concerned flights from Shijiazhuang to Chongqing booked on Qunar (Dahe Daily). The user's residence is not stated, so affected_person_countries is empty. Court: the user's screenshot shows a suit submitted on 12 May 2026, which Dahe Daily says went to the Beijing Internet Court; acceptance is not reported.","court_countries":["CN"],"event_countries":["CN"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with): two outlets relay the user's account that Doubao's answer about the refund fee led him to refund and lose 600 yuan, and that the chatbot then promised compensation it could not pay. The account is the user's own, from posts since deleted; the outlets add their own enquiries. He is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-17"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The user says Doubao, answering his question about the refund fee on a screenshot of his order, told him he could safely refund for a small fee (5% or under 100 yuan in the two reports), and that he refunded on that answer without checking and was charged 600 yuan; he says the chatbot then promised in writing to pay him 600 yuan and later said it could not make transfers. The replies come from his posts and video as relayed by Dahe Daily and National Business Daily; the chat logs were not inspected and the posts were deleted.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"China: user says Doubao misstated an air-ticket refund fee, costing him 600 yuan, then promised compensation it could not pay; he says he filed suit","summary":"According to his own social-media posts and video, as reported by Dahe Daily (15 May 2026) and National Business Daily (20 May 2026), a user in China who had booked flights from Shijiazhuang to Chongqing for 2 May 2026 decided to drive instead and asked the Doubao chatbot about the refund fee. Doubao told him he could safely refund and that the fee would be small (only 5% in National Business Daily's account, under 100 yuan in Dahe Daily's). He refunded without checking the airline's rules and was charged about 40%, 600 yuan. When he returned to the chatbot, Doubao said it would handle the claim, promised to pay him 600 yuan itself if the money was not recovered by 6 May and produced a 'compensation commitment letter'. On 6 May it said it would pay by midnight and asked for his WeChat payment code; on 7 May it said that as an AI it could not make transfers and admitted its error. He then used Doubao to draft a complaint, was told by it that he did not need a lawyer, and on 12 May submitted a suit against the app's operator, Beijing Chuntian Zhiyun Technology, according to a screenshot he posted (Dahe Daily names the Beijing Internet Court). His posts had been deleted by 19 May. Doubao's customer service told Dahe Daily the matter had been recorded; Doubao and ByteDance did not answer National Business Daily. Whether the court accepted the case, and its outcome, are not reported.","incidentDate":"2026-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-05-15","aiSystem":"Doubao, ByteDance's consumer chatbot app, as named by the user and both outlets","aiProduct":"Doubao (reported)","aiCompany":"ByteDance (Doubao app operated by Beijing Chuntian Zhiyun Technology Co., Ltd.)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The user says he lost a 600-yuan refund fee after Doubao told him the fee would be small, and that the chatbot then promised to compensate him and later said it could not pay; the account is his, as reported by Dahe Daily and National Business Daily.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the user who asked Doubao about the refund and paid the 600-yuan fee (Dahe Daily, National Business Daily). No one else is reported harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nbd.com.cn/articles/2026-05-20/4400991.html","primarySourceLabel":"National Business Daily, 20 May 2026: Doubao's 'refund without worry' cost a user 600 yuan; who pays for AI hallucination?","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-17T03:18:55.521434+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-17T03:18:55.521434+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["doubao","chatbot-advice","air-ticket-refund","financial-loss","compensation-promise","lawsuit-filed","china","communicated-with"]},{"id":"2026-germany-court-bars-google-ai-mode-answer-falsely-calling-doctor-convicted-sex-offender","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Ende August 2026 wies ihn ein ärztlicher Kollege darauf hin, was passiert, wenn man seinen Namen zusammen mit dem Suchbegriff \"Freistellung\" bei Google eingibt'; 'Der KI-Modus gab eine zusammenhängende Darstellung aus, die wie ein Tatsachenbericht klang.'; 'Ein Gericht hätte ihn wegen sexueller Nötigung zu einer Bewährungsstrafe verurteilt'; 'wäre deshalb freigestellt und gekündigt worden'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At the end of August 2026 a colleague told the physician that searching his name with the word for suspension in Google's AI Mode produced a connected account that read like a factual report: that he had been suspended and dismissed and had received a suspended sentence for sexual coercion.","causal_attribution":"The AI Mode output as described by beck-aktuell from the court decision; the output itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Gegen ihn gab es nie eine Strafanzeige wegen sexueller Nötigung, kein Strafverfahren und keine Verurteilung.'; 'Die KI hatte vielmehr offenbar Informationen über einen anderen früheren leitenden Mitarbeiter derselben Klinik mit seinem Namen verknüpft.'; 'nannten den Namen des beschuldigten Arztes nicht'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"None of the claims concerned him: there was never a criminal complaint, proceeding or conviction against him; the AI apparently linked information about another former senior employee of the same hospital to his name, and the newspaper articles Google linked as sources did not name him.","causal_attribution":"beck-aktuell's account of the case; the court found the statements attributed to him offences that concerned another person (c4)."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Der Mediziner forderte noch Ende August die Löschung dieser Ergebnisse.'; 'Doch Google antwortete, man habe die Beanstandung geprüft und werde keine Maßnahmen einleiten.'; 'die KI-generierten Inhalte blieben abrufbar'; 'Auch eine Abmahnung durch die Kölner Kanzlei Höcker vom selben Tag blieb ohne Ergebnis'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"He asked Google to delete the results at the end of August; Google replied that it had reviewed the complaint and would take no action, and a warning letter from his lawyers the same day had no effect.","causal_attribution":"As reported by beck-aktuell; Google's own statement was not inspected."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Das LG Aachen hat Google Ireland Limited nun per einstweiliger Verfügung untersagt, die falschen Behauptungen weiter über den KI-Modus zu verbreiten (Beschluss vom 24.09.2026 - 8 O 268/26).'; 'indem sie ihm strafrechtliche Vorwürfe und arbeitsrechtliche Konsequenzen zuordneten, die tatsächlich eine andere Person beträfen'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Das Landgericht Aachen untersagte dem Technologiekonzern Google mit Beschluss vom 24. September 2026 (Az. 8 O 268/26), im KI-Modus Falschbehauptungen über einen Arzt zu verbreiten.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"By a decision of 24 September 2026 (8 O 268/26) the Aachen Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction barring Google Ireland Limited from further spreading the false claims through AI Mode, holding that the AI-generated texts violated his personality rights by attributing to him criminal accusations and employment consequences that concerned another person, and that Google is responsible for the answers of its AI search.","causal_attribution":"The court's decision as reported; the decision text itself was not inspected. Both reports relay the same decision."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Die Falschinformationen seien öffentlich sichtbar und für jeden zugänglich.'; 'obwohl sie geeignet seien, den Arzt in seiner beruflichen Ehre und seinem sozialen Ansehen erheblich zu schädigen'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found the false statements publicly visible and capable of seriously damaging his professional honour and social standing, and noted that Google had done nothing to remove them despite his request and the warning letter.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning as reported by beck-aktuell."}],"effects":[{"label":"AI search answer falsely presenting him as convicted of sexual coercion and dismissed","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"false claims left online after Google declined his removal request","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.beck-aktuell.de/heute-im-recht/rechtsprechung/lg-aachen-8o26826-haftung-falsche-ki-aussage-google-stoererin-chefarzt-sexualstraftaeter-2026-10-08","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"de","translation_note":"Read in German on 2026-10-15 (live page, HTTP 200; beck-aktuell, 8 October 2026, with an editorial note of 12 October 2026 that the description of his former post was slightly changed at his lawyer's request). Legal news report of the court's decision; translated by the research agent (an AI), no human translation.","independence_group":"lg-aachen-8-o-268-26"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.ad-hoc-news.de/wissenschaft/google-ki-im-visier-landgericht-aachen-untersagt-falsche-arztbehauptung/70304380","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"de","translation_note":"Read in German on 2026-10-15 (live page, HTTP 200; ad-hoc-news.de, 12 October 2026). A round-up article whose Aachen paragraph restates the decision's date, file number and legal basis; it adds no independent reporting. Translated by the research agent (an AI).","independence_group":"lg-aachen-8-o-268-26"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice","privacy"],"unknowns":["The exact wording of the AI Mode answer and how many people saw it.","Whether Google has complied, objected or appealed; the decision is an interim injunction issued without a hearing.","Whether the false answer affected his employment or professional standing in practice; he left the chief-physician post in summer 2026 for reasons not connected in any source to the AI answer.","When AI Mode first produced the answer: the end of August 2026 is when a colleague pointed it out, and incident_date records that month."],"geography":{"basis":"beck-aktuell says he worked as a chief physician at a German hospital (an einem deutschen Klinikum) and that the Aachen Regional Court issued the injunction, so the court country is DE and the affected person's country is DE by his work at a German hospital. No source says where the searches that displayed the answer were made, so the event country stays unknown.","court_countries":["DE"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["DE"]},"publication":{"basis":"A German court issued an injunction against Google after its AI Mode attributed another person's sexual-coercion conviction and dismissal to a physician, searched by name, who had no such record, and Google refused his removal request. Contextual relation made_claim_about; the case adds a court injunction holding the search provider responsible for its AI answer. The physician is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Google's AI Mode itself generated the statements: according to beck-aktuell's report of the decision, a search for his name with the word for suspension produced a connected account attributing a conviction for sexual coercion and a dismissal to him, apparently by linking facts about another former employee of the same hospital to his name, while the linked source articles did not name him. The Aachen Regional Court held that these AI-generated texts violated his personality rights and that Google is responsible for them. The answer was not inspected directly; it is known through the reported decision.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"German court bars Google from repeating an AI Mode answer that falsely called a doctor a convicted sex offender","summary":"In late August 2026 a colleague told a German physician, until that summer a chief physician at a hospital, that searching his name with the word for suspension in Google's AI Mode produced what read like a factual report: that he had been suspended and dismissed and had received a suspended sentence for sexual coercion. According to legal news site beck-aktuell, none of it concerned him; the AI had apparently attached facts about another former senior employee of the same hospital to his name, and the newspaper articles it linked as sources did not name him. Google said it had reviewed his complaint and would take no action, and a lawyer's warning letter also failed. On 24 September 2026 the Aachen Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction (8 O 268/26) barring Google Ireland Limited from spreading the claims through AI Mode, finding that they violated his personality rights and that Google is responsible for its AI search answers.","incidentDate":"2026-08-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-08","aiSystem":"Google Search AI Mode (KI-Modus), which generated an answer about the physician when his name was searched","aiProduct":"Google AI Mode","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Google's AI Mode answered searches for a physician's name with a false account that he had been convicted of sexual coercion and dismissed; Google declined to remove it until a court ordered it to stop.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"outward","causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the physician about whom AI Mode made the false claims and who obtained the injunction.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"DE","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.beck-aktuell.de/heute-im-recht/rechtsprechung/lg-aachen-8o26826-haftung-falsche-ki-aussage-google-stoererin-chefarzt-sexualstraftaeter-2026-10-08","primarySourceLabel":"beck-aktuell, 8 October 2026: Google muss KI-Halluzination löschen (German)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:20:24.866709+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:20:24.866709+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["google","ai-mode","defamation","false-accusation","court-injunction","germany"]},{"id":"2025-oregon-federal-court-dismisses-family-plaintiffs-claims-after-briefs-with-ai-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The issue before the Court is the appropriate sanctions for Plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence'; 'Plaintiffs filed three briefs containing citations to fifteen non-existent cases and fabricated quotations falsely attributed to eight legitimate authorities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs filed three summary-judgment briefs citing fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations attributed to eight real authorities, and the court framed its sanctions as being for the plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'[t]he inclusion of inaccurate citations was inadvertent and the result of reliance on an automated legal citation tool'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs told the court the inaccurate citations were inadvertent and resulted from reliance on an automated legal citation tool.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs' filing as quoted by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Court finds that Plaintiffs share responsibility with'; 'for the submission of fifteen non-existent cases and eight fabricated quotations'; 'is a serial self-represented litigator who was likely the person responsible for using artificial intelligence to draft the summary judgment briefs in this case'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that the plaintiffs shared responsibility with their lead lawyer and that one plaintiff, a serial self-represented litigator, was likely the person responsible for using AI to draft the briefs.","causal_attribution":"A court finding of likelihood on unrebutted circumstantial evidence; the drafter's AI use is not otherwise established."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'STRICKEN without leave to refile'; 'to pay the Clerk of the Court $15,500 within 30'; 'Defendants are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney' ; 'Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED with'; 'Local Rules provides an additional basis for terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs' claims.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court struck the briefs without leave to refile, ordered the lead lawyer to pay $15,500 to the Clerk, awarded the defendants reasonable fees and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice; it found the plaintiffs' continual violations of the Local Rules an additional basis for that dismissal.","causal_attribution":"Established by the order."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'finds the requested amount of $94,704.38 reasonable'; 'is ORDERED to pay Defendants 15% of that award, $14,205.66'; 'pay Defendants the remaining 85%'; '$80,498.72 within thirty (30) days'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In March 2026 the court found fees of $94,704.38 reasonable and ordered local counsel to pay 15% ($14,205.66) and the lead lawyer 85% ($80,498.72).","causal_attribution":"Established by the fees order."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Defendants' unopposed Motion for Partial Summary'; 'summary judgment on their eighth counterclaim for breach of contract and ordered specific performance of the inheritance contract'; 'Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 228) is DENIED.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In June 2026 the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its grant of the defendants' unopposed motion for partial summary judgment, which had awarded specific performance of an inheritance contract on a breach-of-contract counterclaim.","causal_attribution":"Established by the reconsideration order; the orders do not say the counterclaim outcome resulted from the AI sanction."}],"effects":[{"label":"family plaintiffs' claims dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for briefs with AI-fabricated citations","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"lead lawyer fined $15,500 and two lawyers ordered to pay $94,704.38 in fees","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.215.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.225.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, pdftotext); the background and fee-allocation sections were inspected.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.233.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, pdftotext); five-page order read in full.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used; the orders name none.","Who drafted the briefs: the court's finding is one of likelihood, and the plaintiffs gave no explanation.","Whether the fine and fees were paid, and the outcome of the order sent to the Oregon State Bar and of a later show-cause order to the lead lawyer.","Whether the counterclaim ruling was affected by the striking of the plaintiffs' briefs."],"geography":{"basis":"The briefs were filed in and the sanctions imposed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Where the briefs were drafted and where the parties live are not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's own orders establish that it dismissed the family plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and sanctioned their lawyers for briefs citing nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations, which the court attributes to the plaintiffs' misuse of generative AI and finds one plaintiff likely drafted with AI. The three orders were read.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's 12 December 2025 order describes the sanctions as being for the plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence, finds that three briefs cited fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations, records the plaintiffs' statement that the citations resulted from reliance on an automated legal citation tool, and finds that one plaintiff was likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs (communicated_with). The AI output reached the court in those briefs, and the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and sanctioned their lawyers because of it (informed_decision_about). No product is named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Oregon federal court dismisses family plaintiffs' claims and fines their lawyer after briefs cited 15 nonexistent cases it attributes to generative AI misuse","summary":"On 12 December 2025 the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed with prejudice the claims of plaintiffs in a family dispute over their late mother's estate and family property, as a sanction for what the court called their misuse of generative artificial intelligence, and found their continual violations of the court's Local Rules an additional basis for the dismissal. Three of the plaintiffs' summary-judgment briefs cited fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations attributed to eight real authorities. The plaintiffs had said the inaccurate citations came from reliance on an automated legal citation tool. The court found that the plaintiffs shared responsibility with their lead lawyer and that one plaintiff, a frequent self-represented litigant, was likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs. It struck the briefs, ordered the lead lawyer to pay $15,500 to the court and awarded the defendants their fees. In March 2026 it set those fees at $94,704.38, ordering the lead lawyer to pay 85% and local counsel 15%. In June 2026 it denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider a later ruling for the defendants on a counterclaim.","incidentDate":"2025-01-31","incidentEndDate":"2025-12-12","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-12-12","aiSystem":"Generative AI used to draft summary-judgment briefs, according to the court; the plaintiffs described it as an automated legal citation tool. No product is named in the orders","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's orders, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice because their briefs cited nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations that the court attributes to misuse of generative AI, which it found one plaintiff likely used to draft them; the lead lawyer was fined $15,500 and the two lawyers were ordered to pay $94,704.38 in fees.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Three people counted from the orders: the individual plaintiff whose claims were dismissed (found likely to have drafted the briefs with AI, so that AI use is a finding of likelihood and she is not counted as an established user), the lead lawyer (fined and ordered to pay 85% of fees) and local counsel (ordered to pay 15% of fees). The estate whose claim was also dismissed has beneficiaries the orders do not count; the LLC plaintiff is not a person.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-OR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.215.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Opinion and Order, ECF 215, case 1:21-cv-00157 (12 December 2025)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:05:45.14301+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:05:45.14301+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","oregon","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","claims-dismissed","client-responsibility"]},{"id":"2025-puerto-rico-federal-court-sanctions-soccer-league-lawyers-over-citations-judge-said-bore-ai-hallmarks","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The judge ordered attorneys José Olmo-Rodríguez and Ibrahim Reyes Gándara to pay $24,492.10 on September 23, 2025, after finding dozens of inaccurate or nonexistent legal citations across four filings.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"A subsequent order issued on September 23, 2025, established the financial penalty at $24,492.10, payable to FIFA and other defendants.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The judge found dozens of inaccurate or nonexistent legal citations across four filings by the league's attorneys and ordered the two attorneys to pay $24,492.10 on 23 September 2025.","causal_attribution":"The court record as reported; the order itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Arias-Marxuach said the errors bore hallmarks of generative AI, although both lawyers denied using the technology. He found that they violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to reasonably verify the legal authorities supporting their arguments.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"previously concluded that filings by the plaintiffs’ lawyers contained 55 erroneous citations that appeared to have been generated with artificial intelligence, according to Reuters.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judge said the errors bore hallmarks of generative AI and found a Rule 11 violation for failing to reasonably verify the cited authorities.","causal_attribution":"The AI attribution is the judge's assessment; the sanction rests on the failure to verify."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"although both lawyers denied using the technology","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"However, attorneys José Olmo-Rodríguez and Ibrahim Reyes Gándara have denied using artificial intelligence to prepare the problematic submissions.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Both lawyers have denied using artificial intelligence to prepare the filings.","causal_attribution":"Counterevidence to the AI attribution."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In April 2025, Judge Arias-Marxuach determined that deficiencies in the lawyers' submissions warranted sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the court's inherent authority to address litigation misconduct.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The judge decided in April 2025 that the deficiencies warranted sanctions under Rule 11 and the court's inherent authority.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history of the sanction as reported; no causal claim about AI."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In an October 6, 2026, filing, soccer's international governing body urged Chief U.S. District Judge Raúl Arias-Marxuach to dismiss the Puerto Rico Soccer League's remaining antitrust claim; The attorneys subsequently proposed paying $1,000 per month beginning October 15","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The plaintiffs' lawyers oppose that request, maintaining that dismissal would unfairly penalise their client for the conduct of its legal representatives.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"FIFA asked the court in an October 2026 filing to dismiss the league's remaining antitrust claim because the sanction had not been paid; the lawyers proposed paying $1,000 a month and argued that dismissal would punish their client.","causal_attribution":"The dismissal request responds to the unpaid sanction; its outcome is pending."}],"effects":[{"label":"two attorneys personally sanctioned $24,492.10 over defective citations","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the client's remaining claim faces a dismissal request over the unpaid sanction","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/fifa-antitrust-lawsuit-ai-citations-sanctions","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full; no translation.","independence_group":"lawcommentary-court-record-oct-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.pymnts.com/cpi-posts/fifa-seeks-to-toss-antitrust-case-over-ai-related-court-sanctions/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full; no translation. PYMNTS attributes its account to Reuters reporting; Reuters itself returned HTTP 401 and was not read.","independence_group":"reuters-fifa-oct-2026-relay"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2026/10/fifa-seeks-dismissal-of-antitrust-lawsuit-over-alleged-ai-misuse/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full; no translation. Its account closely follows the Reuters report relayed by PYMNTS and is grouped with that relay.","independence_group":"reuters-fifa-oct-2026-relay"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether any AI tool was used to prepare the filings, and which one.","The text of the April 2025 and September 2025 sanction orders, which were not read.","Whether the court will dismiss the league's remaining claim or accept the instalment plan."],"geography":{"basis":"The filings were made in, and the sanction imposed by, the U.S. District Court before Chief U.S. District Judge Arias-Marxuach in Puerto Rico (Law Commentary: 'a federal judge in Puerto Rico'). The event is recorded under Puerto Rico's ISO code PR, and the court, a U.S. federal district court, under US. The attorneys' residence is not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["PR"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete court sanction on two attorneys for defective citations that the judge said bore hallmarks of generative AI, with the lawyers' denial recorded. The AI involvement is the judge's assessment and is disputed.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-13"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is a court's sanction responding to defective citations that the court attributed to suspected generative AI use. Law Commentary reports that the judge said the errors bore hallmarks of generative AI, and PYMNTS, citing Reuters, reports his conclusion that the 55 erroneous citations appeared to have been generated with AI. Both lawyers deny using AI, no source names a tool, and the sanction itself rests on the failure to verify the citations. Because no AI output is established as reaching the lawyers or the court, the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Puerto Rico federal judge sanctions a soccer league's lawyers over 55 defective citations he said bore hallmarks of generative AI; the lawyers deny using AI","summary":"In an antitrust lawsuit that the Puerto Rico Soccer League brought against FIFA, CONCACAF and Puerto Rican football officials, Chief U.S. District Judge Raúl Arias-Marxuach found dozens of inaccurate or nonexistent legal citations across four filings by the league's two attorneys. According to Law Commentary, he said the errors bore hallmarks of generative AI and found that the lawyers violated Rule 11 by failing to reasonably verify the authorities they cited. Lawyer Monthly reports that the sanctions were decided in April 2025 and that an order of 23 September 2025 set the penalty at $24,492.10, payable to FIFA and the other defendants. Both lawyers have denied using artificial intelligence. In an October 2026 filing FIFA asked the court to dismiss the league's remaining claim because the sanction had not been paid. The lawyers proposed paying $1,000 a month, cited financial difficulties and an injury one of them suffered in March 2026, and argued that dismissal would punish their client for penalties imposed on them personally. The court had not ruled on the dismissal request when these reports were published.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-07","aiSystem":"Generative AI that the judge said the defective citations bore hallmarks of; the lawyers deny using AI and no source names a tool","aiProduct":"Unidentified legal research tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Two attorneys were personally ordered to pay $24,492.10 over defective citations the judge said bore hallmarks of generative AI, and their client's remaining claim now faces a dismissal request over the unpaid sum (court record as reported by Law Commentary and Lawyer Monthly)","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two attorneys were ordered to pay the sanction (Law Commentary and Lawyer Monthly name both). They are counted as other people harmed because both deny using AI, so neither is established as a direct AI user. The league is an organisation and is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/fifa-antitrust-lawsuit-ai-citations-sanctions","primarySourceLabel":"Law Commentary, 12 October 2026: FIFA wants antitrust lawsuit dismissed after lawyers sanctioned over suspected AI-generated citations","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-13T03:08:38.415526+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-13T03:08:38.415526+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["legal-citations","court-sanction","rule-11","generative-ai-suspected","consequential-response","puerto-rico"]},{"id":"2026-spokane-appliance-retailer-spokeswoman-ai-voice-edited-ads-without-consent-lawsuit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'But in February, George noticed on social media that Fred’s, and production company Victory Media, had created a President’s Day advertisement' and 'They were using past footage and bits and pieces from different commercials.' and '“They never once told me what they were doing or asked for my consent.” she said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The lawsuit alleges that in February, George noticed that the company's President's Day ad was one that she had not recorded' and '‘This is not my voice! These are words I never spoke.''","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In February 2026 George saw a Presidents' Day advertisement for the retailer that she had not recorded, made from past footage with words in her voice that she says she never spoke and was never asked about.","causal_attribution":"George's own account and her lawsuit's allegation; both outlets interviewed her, so it is one witness."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'We acknowledge that we used AI-assisted voice editing to make a limited number of updates to existing advertisements, primarily involving pricing and promotional changes.' and 'Victory Media did not create or publish AI-generated versions of her image or likeness'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'We believed those uses were authorized under our spokesperson agreement and were consistent with our contractual rights.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Victory Media said it had used AI-assisted voice editing to make a limited number of updates to existing advertisements, mainly pricing and promotional changes, that it believed its spokesperson agreement authorised them, and that it denies creating or publishing AI-generated versions of her image or likeness.","causal_attribution":"The company's own statement, issued through its lawyer and quoted by both outlets; one origin."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'After she raised concerns, Victory Media and Fred’s offered her an addendum to her contract that would allow them to use artificial intelligence to create more advertisements.' and 'In response, George ended her work with Fred’s Appliance'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'the company attempted to introduce an \"AI Addendum\" to her contract, which she refused. She later ended her work with the companies.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"After George raised concerns, the companies proposed a contract addendum allowing AI use, which she refused, and she ended her work with the retailer.","causal_attribution":"George's account; KREM attributes the addendum to documents it saw."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'When they use AI, it diminishes my value as a spokeswoman. I can’t monitor or stop what words are coming out of my mouth.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"George said the AI use diminishes her value as a spokeswoman because she cannot control what words come out of her mouth.","causal_attribution":"George's own statement of the effect on her."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'who filed a lawsuit in Spokane Superior Court on Tuesday.' and 'Defendants have engaged in unlawful commercial exploitation of Ms. George’s exclusive property rights involving her past work' and 'The suit names Fred’s Appliance' and 'along with Liberty Lake-based Victory Media and' and 'who is the CEO of Victory Media.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'George is seeking damages in an amount to be decided at trial, along with an injunction to prevent the companies from continuing to use her likeness.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"George sued Fred's Appliance, Victory Media and its chief executive in Spokane Superior Court, alleging unauthorised commercial use of her voice and likeness and seeking damages and an injunction.","causal_attribution":"Both outlets report the filing and quote the complaint; the complaint itself was not read, and its allegations remain allegations."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'We proactively disclosed the AI-assisted voice edits' and 'Victory Media also noted that Fred's Appliance was unaware of the edits made.' and 'we offered to compensate our former spokesperson rather than engage in costly litigation. That offer was not accepted'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Lam issued a statement later Wednesday indicating that the parties could be close to settling the matter out of court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Victory Media said it disclosed the edits when questions were raised, that Fred's Appliance was unaware of the edits, and that it offered compensation that George did not accept; its lawyer later said the parties could be close to settling.","causal_attribution":"The company's statements; George's side of the compensation offer is not reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"advertisements carried AI-edited words in the spokeswoman's voice without her consent, she says","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"spokeswoman ended her work with the retailer after refusing an AI contract addendum","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jul/01/longtime-spokeswoman-sues-freds-appliance-over-use/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-12 from the publisher page (full article); no translation was needed and the research agent (an AI) read the text directly.","independence_group":"spokesman-review"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.krem.com/article/news/local/spokeswoman-freds-appliance-sues-company-ai/293-bf7aa1fd-0da0-403c-a363-7edf3101f558","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-12 from the MSN syndicated copy of the KREM article (assets.msn.com detail AA27mfrz, provider KREM-TV Spokane); no translation was needed and the research agent (an AI) read the text directly.","independence_group":"krem"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used and how many advertisements carried edited words; the company refers to a list of known instances that is not published.","The exact dates the edited advertisements aired; the Presidents' Day spot places the first in February 2026.","Whether the contract authorised the edits, which is the dispute before the court.","Whether George's claims that her image or likeness was altered by AI, beyond the voice, are supported; the company denies them.","Whether the case settled."],"geography":{"basis":"The advertisements were for Fred's Appliance, which has stores in Spokane, Spokane Valley, Coeur d'Alene, Kennewick and Montana, and were produced by Liberty Lake-based Victory Media; George worked for the retailer in that market. The suit is in Spokane Superior Court, Washington.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the production company's own acknowledgement, quoted by The Spokesman-Review and KREM, that it used AI-assisted voice editing to change existing advertisements voiced by George, together with her account that the edits put words she never spoke in her voice without her consent and that she ended her work after refusing an AI addendum. The AI-edited voice is the described output and her loss of control over her voice and work is the reported harm. Claims stay reported because they rest on George's account, her complaint and the company's statement.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Victory Media's statement, quoted by both outlets, acknowledges \"AI-assisted voice editing to make a limited number of updates to existing advertisements, primarily involving pricing and promotional changes\". George says the Presidents' Day advertisement used words in her voice that she never recorded (\"This is not my voice! These are words I never spoke.\"). The AI-edited voice is the output that presented her as saying words she had not said, and it is what her refusal of the AI addendum, the end of her work with the retailer and her lawsuit concern. The tool is not named, and the company denies any AI alteration of her image.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Spokane: an appliance retailer's longtime spokeswoman sues after its ad agency admits AI voice edits to her ads; she says she never consented","summary":"Amber George was the spokeswoman for Fred's Appliance, a Spokane-area retailer, for 14 years. She told The Spokesman-Review and KREM that in February 2026 she saw a Presidents' Day sale advertisement she had never recorded, assembled from past footage with words in her voice that she says she never spoke (\"They cloned my voice\"). Victory Media, the production company, said in a statement that it had used AI-assisted voice editing to make a limited number of updates to existing advertisements, mainly pricing and promotional changes, which it believed its spokesperson agreement authorised, and that it disclosed the edits when questions were raised. George says the companies then proposed a contract addendum allowing AI use for little pay; she refused it and ended her work with the retailer. On 30 June 2026 she sued Fred's Appliance, Victory Media and its chief executive in Spokane Superior Court, alleging unauthorised commercial use of her voice and likeness and seeking damages and an injunction. Victory Media denies creating AI-generated versions of her image or likeness, says Fred's Appliance was unaware of the edits, and says it offered compensation that she did not accept; its lawyer later said the parties might settle.","incidentDate":"2026-02-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-07-01","aiSystem":"Unnamed AI-assisted voice editing used by the production company Victory Media to change words in existing Fred's Appliance advertisements voiced by the spokeswoman","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"George says advertisements carried words in her voice that she never spoke and was never asked about, that the AI use diminishes her value as a spokeswoman because she cannot control what words come out of her mouth, and that she ended her 14-year work with the retailer after refusing an AI addendum. These are her own and her lawsuit's allegations; the companies say the edits were authorised by contract.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: Amber George, whose voice was edited in the advertisements and who brought the suit. Viewers of the advertisements are an audience and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-WA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jul/01/longtime-spokeswoman-sues-freds-appliance-over-use/","primarySourceLabel":"The Spokesman-Review, 1 July 2026: Longtime spokeswoman sues Fred's Appliance over use of AI likeness","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:13:14.78748+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:13:14.78748+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["voice-cloning","ai-voice-editing","advertising","spokesperson","consent","likeness","lawsuit","spokane","depicted-or-impersonated","institutional-use"]},{"id":"2026-doe-v-xai-grok-abuse-survivor-known-series-images","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Using pre-existing and known CSAM involving Plaintiff, Grok generated new CSAM,'; 'xAI, using Grok, has generated images depicting Plaintiff and the child pornography'; 'The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has identified AI-generated CSAM on xAI'; '(hereinafter, “NCMEC”) in the early 2000s'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'attorneys for the plaintiff stated that the Canadian Centre for Child Protection used images’ fingerprints to identify AI-generated CSAM on X that depicted their client.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'that Grok generated new sexually explicit images of her likeness'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'It also claims “xAI, using Grok, has generated images depicting Plaintiff and the child pornography series in which she is the victim.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that Grok generated new child sexual abuse images depicting the plaintiff, an adult survivor whose childhood abuse was recorded in a known image series identified by NCMEC in the early 2000s, and that the Canadian Centre for Child Protection has identified AI-generated abuse images of her on xAI's service.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiff. The complaint does not say when the images were generated, who prompted them, or how many there were; no court has ruled on the allegations and xAI has not responded publicly."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'CSAM depicting Plaintiff with its longstanding well-known hash values has been used'; 'as a part of the dataset used by xAI.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The complaint alleges that same material was part of the dataset xAI used to build Grok’s image and video generating capabilities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that the known abuse images of the plaintiff, with their long-established hash values, were part of the dataset xAI used for Grok.","causal_attribution":"Allegation about training data; the complaint does not describe how this was established."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Each time Grok created new CSAM concerning Plaintiff, Grok caused her a new'; 'compounding the already extensive harm Plaintiff suffered.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Our client has lived for nearly two decades knowing that images of the worst thing that ever happened to her are circulating among predators online, and that they can resurface at any moment,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The complaint says each new image Grok created or re-published of the plaintiff caused her a new personal injury, compounding the harm she already suffered from the circulation of her abuse images; her counsel says she has lived for nearly two decades knowing the images circulate and can resurface at any moment.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's and counsel's characterization of her injury; no specific symptoms or consequences are described."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Filed 08/26/26'; 'Plaintiff seeks relief under the federal cause of action known as “Masha’s Law,”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Date Filed: Aug. 26, 2026'; 'Sep 22, 2026'; 'Order Relating Case'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff filed the proposed nationwide class action against X.AI Corp. and X.AI LLC on 26 August 2026 in the Northern District of California, under Masha's Law (18 U.S.C. § 2255) and 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(f); an order relating the case was entered on 22 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"Procedural record only."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Neither xAI nor SpaceX, which acquired the company in February, returned requests for comment regarding the lawsuit.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'On Jan. 14, after the period tracked by the center, Musk wrote on X that he was “not aware of any naked underage images of Grok. Literally zero.”'","relation":"context","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Neither xAI nor SpaceX, which acquired xAI in February 2026, responded to the Guardian's request for comment; Musk had written on X on 14 January 2026 that he was not aware of any naked underage images generated by Grok.","causal_attribution":"Response record; Musk's statement is general and does not address this plaintiff."}],"effects":[{"label":"Grok allegedly generated new sexual-abuse images depicting an identified adult survivor of childhood abuse, from her known abuse image series","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the survivor says each new image caused her a new injury on top of two decades of her abuse images circulating","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.477196/gov.uscourts.cand.477196.1.0_1.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Class Action Complaint, Doe 1 v. X.AI Corp., No. 5:26-cv-09016 (N.D. Cal., San Jose), ECF 1, filed 26 August 2026; RECAP PDF (23 pages) read in full on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200). The plaintiff's allegations, not findings; several key facts are pleaded without dates.","independence_group":"plaintiff-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74706848/doe-1-v-xai-corp/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"CourtListener docket read newest-first on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200; last known filing 28 Sept 2026). Procedural facts only; the 22 September order relating the case was not read.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://girardsharp.com/child-sexual-abuse-survivor-files-class-action-against-xai-alleging-grok-was-trained-on-her-abuse-material-and-generated-new-csam/","kind":"press_release","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Plaintiff's counsel Girard Sharp press release, 27 August 2026, read live on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200).","independence_group":"plaintiff-account"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-41906197.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Guardian's report by Nick Robins-Early (3 September 2026), read in the Irish Examiner's syndicated copy credited to The Guardian on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200); the theguardian.com URL was not located. It relays the complaint and interviews plaintiff's counsel.","independence_group":"plaintiff-account"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://cyberscoop.com/xai-grok-csam-class-action-lawsuit/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"CyberScoop, Derek B. Johnson, 27 August 2026, read live on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200). Relays the complaint; its paraphrase that the hash values 'have shown up in deepfakes created with Grok and spread on X' is broader than the complaint's wording and is not relied on.","independence_group":"plaintiff-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy"],"unknowns":["When the images of the plaintiff were generated or posted, how many there were, and who prompted them.","Whether the Canadian Centre for Child Protection's identification has been confirmed by any source other than the plaintiff's filing and counsel.","The plaintiff's country of residence.","xAI's response to the allegations."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint says only that the plaintiff resides outside California; her country and where the images were generated or posted are not stated. The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete adverse account of an identified person depicted in AI-generated abuse images, resting on the plaintiff's federal complaint, counsel's statements and news reports relaying them. All facts about Grok's role are allegations; nothing identifying the plaintiff and no description of the images is recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges Grok generated the images and that the Canadian Centre for Child Protection identified AI-generated images of her on xAI's service; counsel told the Guardian the identification used the series' hash fingerprints. No independent confirmation of the identification or of which prompts produced the images was inspected.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Doe 1 v. xAI: an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse alleges Grok generated new abuse images of her from her known, hashed abuse series, which she says xAI used as training data","summary":"A survivor who was sexually abused as a preschool-aged child and now sues individually under the pseudonym Jane Doe 1, and whose abuse images have circulated online since the early 2000s as a series known to NCMEC, sued xAI on 26 August 2026 in the Northern District of California. Her complaint alleges that those known images were part of the dataset xAI used for Grok and that Grok generated new abuse images depicting her; her lawyers say the Canadian Centre for Child Protection used the series' hash fingerprints to identify AI-generated images of her on X. The complaint says each new image caused her a new injury. It seeks damages under Masha's Law for a proposed class of people whose childhood images Grok altered into abuse material. The complaint does not say when the images of her were made or who prompted them. xAI did not respond to requests for comment, and no court has ruled on the allegations.","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-08-26","aiSystem":"Grok image generation on X and xAI's services (the complaint does not identify the specific tool or model version used for the images of the plaintiff)","aiProduct":"Grok","aiCompany":"xAI (X.AI Corp. and X.AI LLC; acquired by SpaceX in February 2026)","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiff alleges that Grok generated new abuse images depicting her from her known childhood abuse series and that each new image caused her a new injury; her counsel describes two decades of living with the images' circulation (the plaintiff's complaint and counsel; no court finding).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The named plaintiff (1 person depicted). The proposed class of 'at least thousands' is counsel's estimate of class membership and is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.477196/gov.uscourts.cand.477196.1.0_1.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Class Action Complaint, Doe 1 v. X.AI Corp., No. 5:26-cv-09016 (N.D. Cal.), filed 26 August 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:04:05.310491+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:35.914162+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["xai","grok","csam","image-generation","training-data","masha's-law","class-action","survivor","depicted"]},{"id":"2025-tsuda-v-tiktok-ai-voice-imitation-tokyo","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'生成AI（人工知能）によって自身の声を無断で模倣した動画が公開されているとして、人気声優の津田健次郎さんが、TikTok（ティックトック）の運営会社に動画の削除を求めて東京地裁に提訴していたことが23日分かった。'; '2024年7月〜25年9月、津田さんの声質を模したナレーションを付け、都市伝説やオカルト、雑学をテーマとした動画を188本投稿したとされる。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'訴状などによると、２０２４年７月～２５年９月、都市伝説や陰謀論を扱う画像に津田さんの声質を模したナレーションを付けた動画１８８件が投稿された。'; '動画には「ツダケンの声がする」「声が似ている」などのコメントが相次いだ。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'訴状によると、問題の動画アカウントは2024年7月以降、津田さんの声を模したナレーションで都市伝説や心霊現象を語る内容で、少なくとも188件投稿した。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"According to Mr Tsuda's complaint, an account run by an unidentified person posted at least 188 videos between July 2024 and September 2025 narrated by a generative-AI imitation of his voice, without his permission, and viewers commented that the voice sounded like him.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegations as reported from the complaint and his lawyer (one chain); the court has not ruled."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'ティックトックには再生回数に応じて金銭が支払われる仕組みがあり、月50万〜75万円の収益を上げたとしている。'; '提訴は25年11月。この時点で投稿者は21万人以上のフォロワーを有し、動画の平均再生回数は147万回に上るという。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'動画の再生数に応じて投稿者は月50万～75万円の収益を上げていた、と津田さん側は主張している。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"His side says the account had about 210,000 followers when he sued in November 2025, videos averaged 1.47 million views, and the poster earned 500,000 to 750,000 yen a month from TikTok's view-based payments.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's figures; not independently verified."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'これに対して運営会社側は「投稿者は『友人の声を生成ＡＩに学習させた』と述べており、普遍的な男性の声にすぎない」などと反論。提訴後に動画データがアカウントごと削除されたとし、「訴えの利益はない」として請求却下も求めている。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'一方、ティックトック側は答弁書で、問題の音声が「津田さんと『同一の声』かどうかは客観的に明らかではない」などと反論。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'25年8月、東京地裁がティックトック側に投稿者の情報の開示を命じたが、開示された情報が古く、投稿者の特定に至らなかったという。'","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"TikTok's operator disputes the claim, saying it is not objectively clear the voice is the same as his and that it is a generic male voice, that the poster said they had trained AI on a friend's voice, and that the account and videos were deleted after the suit was filed; it asks for the claim to be dismissed.","causal_attribution":"Defendant's position as reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'高橋裁判長は判決理由で、一般論として人の声は「肖像と同様に個人の人格の象徴と言える」と指摘。実演家の声を無断で使用する行為は、もっぱらその声がもつ顧客吸引力の利用が目的と認められる場合にはパブリシティー権の侵害に当たるとの考え方を示した。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'判決は、人の声は容姿と同じように「個人の人格の象徴といえる」と指摘。'; '人の声が法的な保護の対象になると認めた司法判断は初めて。'; '声優らの声を無断で使う行為について、その声に商品の販売などを促す顧客吸引力があり、もっぱらその声の顧客吸引力を利用する目的で使っている場合は「パブリシティー権の侵害にあたると解するのが相当だ」と述べた。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"'30日の判決で東京地裁は「人の声は肖像と同様に個人の人格の象徴」と指摘しました。'; 'そのうえで実演家の声を無断で使用することについて、顧客吸引力の利用する目的があれば「パブリシティー権」の侵害に当たるとする初めての判断を示しました。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"'模倣された声が入った動画の削除を求めた訴訟の判決が３０日、東京地裁で言い渡される。生成ＡＩによる声の権利侵害を巡る初の訴訟で'","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'ベテラン声優らは「声の権利を認めてほしい」と訴え、津田健次郎さんが起こした訴訟の判決を見守っている。'","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"On 30 September 2026 the Tokyo District Court held, as a general principle, that a person's voice is a symbol of individual personality like a likeness, and that using a performer's voice without permission solely to exploit its power to attract customers infringes the right of publicity; it was described as the first such judicial finding in Japan.","causal_attribution":"Court's general holding as reported by three outlets that each reported the judgment; the judgment text itself was not read."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'ただ今回の動画はすでに運営会社のサーバーからも削除されているとし、これ以上削除する義務を負っておらず原告の請求は理由がないと結論付けた。問題の動画がパブリシティー権を侵害しているかは判断を示さなかった。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'一方で判決は、今回の裁判で津田さん側が問題とした動画は削除済みだと認定。津田さんの声の権利が侵害されたかについては判断しなかった。'; 'ただ、今回の事例では動画がすでに消えており、ティックトックの運営会社に削除義務はないと判断。津田さん側の請求は退けた。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"'一方で、動画の削除についてはアカウントがすでに削除されているため、削除義務がないとし、津田さん側の請求を退けました。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The court dismissed Mr Tsuda's claim because the videos had already been deleted, so TikTok's operator had no duty to delete them, and it did not decide whether the videos infringed his publicity right.","causal_attribution":"Court's disposition as reported; no finding that the videos imitate or infringe his voice."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'原告側は津田さんの声と混同させて月50万〜75万円の収益を得ていたなどとして、不正競争防止法違反にも当たると主張したが、この点については判決は言及しなかった。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"According to Nikkei, the judgment did not address his separate argument that the videos breached the Unfair Competition Prevention Act by passing them off as his voice.","causal_attribution":"Single report (Nikkei)."},{"id":"c7","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'今年5月には投稿者がアカウントを削除した。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'提訴後の今年5月、投稿者がアカウントを削除し、問題の動画は表示されなくなっていた。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The poster deleted the account in May 2026, after the suit was filed.","causal_attribution":"Reported by Nikkei and the Asahi Shimbun from the proceedings."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'判決後、津田さんの代理人弁護士は控訴しない方針を示した。'; 'ティックトックの運営会社は「今後も、テクノロジーの発展と権利保護のバランスのとれた在り方について、誠実に取り組んでいく」とコメントした。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"After the judgment his lawyer said they did not plan to appeal, and TikTok's operator said it would keep working on a balance between technological development and rights protection.","causal_attribution":"Statements reported by the Asahi Shimbun."}],"effects":[{"label":"voice allegedly imitated by generative AI without permission in at least 188 monetised TikTok videos that viewers associated with him","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.jiji.com/jc/article?k=2026092600287&g=soc","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-09-28; summarised in English by the researcher (no human translation). Reports the complaint and TikTok's filings. Re-read on 2026-10-01.","independence_group":"tsuda-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUD231K30T20C26A5000000/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-09-28 (23 May 2026); sourced to the plaintiff's lawyer and the complaint. Researcher translation. Re-read on 2026-10-01.","independence_group":"tsuda-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASV5T2J1LV5TUTIL00FM.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-09-28 (May 2026); the visible article text was read and quotes the complaint and TikTok's answer. Researcher translation. Re-read on 2026-10-01.","independence_group":"tsuda-complaint"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.jiji.com/jc/article?k=2026092600297&g=soc","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-09-28 (26 September 2026). Industry context; does not add facts about the Tsuda videos. Researcher translation. Re-read on 2026-10-01.","independence_group":"jiji-industry-feature"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUD262B00W6A920C2000000/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-10-01 (30 September 2026 judgment report by Nikkei; photo credited to Kyodo). Researcher translation.","independence_group":"nikkei-judgment-report"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASV9Z11V1V9ZUTIL02SM.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-10-01; the visible text before the paywall was read (about 1,000 characters remain unread). Bylined by the Asahi Tokyo city news court reporter. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"asahi-judgment-report"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://news.tv-asahi.co.jp/news_society/articles/900200797.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ja","translation_note":"Read live in Japanese on 2026-10-01 (TV Asahi running summary of the 30 September 2026 judgment). Researcher translation.","independence_group":"tv-asahi-judgment-report"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Who ran the account and which AI tool produced the voice (a court-ordered disclosure in August 2025 did not identify the poster, according to the Asahi Shimbun).","Whether the voice was modelled on Mr Tsuda's voice and whether the videos infringed his publicity right; the court dismissed the claim because the videos had already been deleted, without deciding either.","Mr Tsuda's own account of personal or financial effects; no statement from him was read.","The full judgment text; it was not read, and the court's reasoning is taken from news reports."],"geography":{"basis":"Mr Tsuda is a Japanese voice actor working in Japan and the suit is in the Tokyo District Court (Nikkei; Jiji). The poster is unidentified and the place where the videos were made is not reported, so no event country is recorded.","court_countries":["JP"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["JP"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a core case (a generative-AI voice alleged to impersonate a real, named performer in monetised videos). Updated after the 30 September 2026 judgment: the facts of the videos come from his complaint as reported by Nikkei, the Asahi Shimbun and Jiji Press, with TikTok's rebuttal; the ruling is taken from Nikkei, Asahi and TV Asahi reports. Imitation and infringement remain undecided because the court dismissed the claim on the ground that the videos had already been deleted. Mr Tsuda is a public figure suing in his own name; the poster is unidentified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-01"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges generative-AI imitation of his voice (Nikkei; Asahi; Jiji). TikTok's side and the poster reportedly say the voice was generated by AI trained on a friend's voice, so AI generation is asserted by both sides; whether it imitates Tsuda was not decided by the court, which dismissed the claim because the videos had been deleted.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Tokyo: voice actor Kenjiro Tsuda sued TikTok's operator over at least 188 monetised videos he says were narrated by a generative-AI imitation of his voice; on 30 September 2026 the Tokyo District Court held that a voice can be protected by publicity rights but dismissed his deletion claim because the videos had already been deleted","summary":"Kenjiro Tsuda, a Japanese voice actor known for roles in Jujutsu Kaisen, sued the operator of TikTok in the Tokyo District Court in November 2025, seeking removal of videos he says use a generative-AI imitation of his voice without permission. According to his complaint, as reported by Jiji Press, Nikkei and the Asahi Shimbun, an account run by an unidentified person posted at least 188 short videos on urban legends, the occult and trivia between July 2024 and September 2025, narrated in a voice modelled on his; the account had about 210,000 followers, videos averaged 1.47 million views, and his side says the poster earned 500,000 to 750,000 yen a month from TikTok's view-based payments. TikTok's operator said the voice was a generic male voice that the poster said came from AI trained on a friend's voice. The poster deleted the account in May 2026. On 30 September 2026 the court held, as a general principle, that a person's voice is a symbol of personality like a likeness and that using a performer's voice without permission solely to exploit its power to attract customers infringes the right of publicity, the first such ruling in Japan. It dismissed the claim because the videos were already gone and TikTok's operator had no remaining duty to delete them, and it did not decide whether these videos infringed his rights (Nikkei; Asahi Shimbun; TV Asahi). His lawyer said they did not plan to appeal.","incidentDate":"2024-07-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-09-30","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-05-23","aiSystem":"An unidentified generative-AI voice tool used by an anonymous TikTok account to produce narration (the plaintiff alleges the voice imitates his; the poster reportedly said the model was trained on a friend's voice); videos distributed on TikTok","aiProduct":"Unidentified voice-cloning tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Mr Tsuda alleges that an anonymous poster used a generative-AI imitation of his voice, without permission, to narrate at least 188 monetised TikTok videos that viewers took to be his, infringing his rights over his voice; TikTok disputes that the voice is his, and the court dismissed his deletion claim without deciding infringement because the videos had been deleted (Nikkei, Asahi and Jiji Press).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the plaintiff Kenjiro Tsuda, whose voice is alleged to have been imitated (Nikkei; Asahi; Jiji Press). Followers and viewers are not counted. Other voice actors described in the Jiji industry feature are separate accounts and are not counted. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"JP","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUD262B00W6A920C2000000/","primarySourceLabel":"Nikkei, 30 September 2026: 声にもパブリシティー権、初の司法判断　津田健次郎さんの請求は棄却","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-28T03:31:37.82387+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T03:20:05.706932+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["voice-cloning","voice-actor","publicity-rights","tiktok","japan","tokyo-district-court","lawsuit","depicted-or-impersonated","court-ruling"]},{"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"]}]}