{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-14T15:49:29.769Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"lawyers","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"core","evidence":"","year":"","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":3,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":4,"minors":0,"coreRelations":4,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-johannesburg-high-court-refers-applicant-lawyers-to-legal-practice-council-over-ai-tool-fictitious-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'two cases cited in Northbound Processing'; 'were fictitious'; 'the revised version contained two additional incorrect citations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'heads of argument contained fictitious case citations that appeared to have been generated by artificial intelligence'; 'contained two additional incorrect citations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"While preparing judgment in Northbound Processing's urgent application against the South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator, the acting judge found that two cases cited in the applicant's heads of argument did not exist, and a corrected version supplied by junior counsel contained two further incorrect citations.","causal_attribution":"The judgment as described by ITWeb and by a law-firm alert; both rest on the same judgment, which was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'acknowledged that the non-existent citations likely originated from an AI tool'; 'he had used a tool called'; 'which claimed to be trained solely on South African legal sources'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'counsel acknowledged the use of AI, accepted full responsibility'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On the court's direct inquiry, junior counsel acknowledged that the non-existent citations likely originated from an AI tool and said a tool called Legal Genius had been used under deadline pressure.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's statement to the court as relayed by ITWeb; the law-firm alert relays the acknowledgment without naming the tool."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'found no intent to deceive the court'; 'be referred to the Legal Practice Council for investigation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'a referral to the Legal Practice Council for investigation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judge accepted the legal team's apologies and found no intent to deceive the court, but ordered that the conduct of Northbound's legal practitioners be referred to the Legal Practice Council for investigation.","causal_attribution":"The court's order as described by both accounts of the judgment."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'While Northbound ultimately succeeded in obtaining the relief sought'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Northbound nevertheless obtained the relief it sought in the application.","causal_attribution":"The law-firm alert's account of the judgment."}],"effects":[{"label":"the applicant's legal practitioners were referred to the Legal Practice Council for investigation over fictitious citations","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.itweb.co.za/article/lawyers-face-probe-for-using-hallucinating-genai-in-court/Pero3MZ3221qQb6m","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200). ITWeb reports from court documents it saw; the judgment itself was not available to the agent.","independence_group":"northbound-processing-judgment-zagpjhc"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com/en/news/publications/2025/Practice/Employment-Law/combined-employment-and-knowledge-management-alert-4-july-Another-episode-of-fabricated-citations-real-repercussions-South-African-courts-show-no-tolerance-for-AI-hallucinated-cases","kind":"other","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from a 2025 Internet Archive capture (the live page returned HTTP 403). A law-firm client alert analysing the same judgment; same origin as ITWeb.","independence_group":"northbound-processing-judgment-zagpjhc"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The exact date of the judgment and of the referral order.","How many practitioners were referred and the outcome of any Legal Practice Council investigation.","Which citations Legal Genius produced and whether the tool provider responded."],"geography":{"basis":"The heads were filed in, and the referral ordered by, the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg (ITWeb, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr). Where counsel prepared the heads is not stated, so no event or affected-person country is recorded from the court seat.","court_countries":["ZA"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because two accounts of the judgment report that the court referred the applicant's lawyers to the Legal Practice Council after heads of argument cited non-existent cases, and that junior counsel told the court the citations likely came from the AI tool Legal Genius.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"ITWeb, which saw the court documents, reports that on the court's direct inquiry junior counsel acknowledged that the non-existent citations in the heads of argument likely originated from an AI tool and said a tool called Legal Genius had been used under deadline pressure; Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr's analysis of the judgment says counsel acknowledged the use of AI. The tool's output (citations of cases that do not exist) was filed in the heads, and the court referred the practitioners to the Legal Practice Council because fictitious authorities were placed before it. The attribution rests on counsel's acknowledgment as relayed by these two accounts of the judgment; the judgment itself was not read.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Johannesburg High Court refers a company's lawyers to the Legal Practice Council over fictitious citations that junior counsel said likely came from an AI tool","summary":"In an urgent application by Northbound Processing against the South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator, Acting Judge DJ Smit of the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, found while preparing judgment that two cases cited in the applicant's heads of argument did not exist. According to ITWeb, which saw the court documents, junior counsel first said a wrong version had been filed, a corrected version was found to contain two further incorrect citations, and on the court's direct inquiry junior counsel acknowledged that the citations likely originated from an AI tool called Legal Genius, used under deadline pressure. The judge accepted the legal team's apologies and found no intent to deceive, but referred the conduct of the applicant's legal practitioners to the Legal Practice Council for investigation (June 2025). The applicant obtained the relief it sought.","incidentDate":"2025-06-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-07-02","aiSystem":"Legal Genius, an AI legal research tool that junior counsel told the court had been used and which, junior counsel said, claimed to be trained solely on South African legal sources","aiProduct":"Legal Genius (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to ITWeb and a law-firm alert on the judgment, the court referred the applicant's legal practitioners to the Legal Practice Council for investigation after heads of argument cited non-existent cases that junior counsel said likely came from the AI tool Legal Genius.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the junior counsel who told the court the tool had been used, among the legal practitioners whose conduct was referred. The order refers the practitioners as a group and the sources read do not state how many were referred, so others are unquantified. The applicant company is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"ZA","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.itweb.co.za/article/lawyers-face-probe-for-using-hallucinating-genai-in-court/Pero3MZ3221qQb6m","primarySourceLabel":"ITWeb, 2 July 2025: Lawyers face probe for using hallucinating GenAI in court","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:33.803607+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:33.803607+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["south-africa","johannesburg","high-court","fictitious-citations","legal-practice-council","legal-research-tool"]},{"id":"2025-colorado-federal-court-fines-mypillow-defence-lawyers-over-brief-with-fabricated-citations-after-ai-admission","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Defendants filed their Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff'; 'the Court identified nearly thirty defective citations in the Opposition'; 'and most egregiously, citation of cases that do not exist'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'and most egregiously, citation of cases that do not exist'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The defendants' opposition to the plaintiff's motion in limine, filed on 25 February 2025 and signed by Kachouroff and DeMaster, contained nearly thirty defective citations, including misquotes and citations of cases that do not exist.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court orders, which record the court's own review of the filed brief."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Was this motion generated by generative'; 'Initially, I did an outline for myself, and I'; 'drafted a motion, and then we ran it through AI'; 'I personally did not check it'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Final Pretrial/Trial Preparation Conference held on April 21, 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"At the final pretrial conference on 21 April 2025, asked whether the motion was generated by generative artificial intelligence, Kachouroff said he had drafted it and then ran it through AI, and that he personally did not check the citations.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's statement to the court, quoted from the transcript in the 7 July order; it establishes what counsel said, and the AI's role in the defective citations rests on that statement and the co-counsel declaration."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'believed some of these citations were likely from AI drafts'; 'I do not rely on AI to do legal research or find cases'; 'the use of generative artificial intelligence or gross carelessness by counsel'; 'Nor is this Court persuaded by counsel'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Co-counsel's declaration said Kachouroff had told her he believed some of the citations were likely from AI drafts; counsel also said a wrong draft had been filed by mistake and Kachouroff declared he does not rely on AI to do legal research or find cases. The court was not persuaded by the wrong-draft explanation and found no explanation of how the citations appeared absent generative AI or gross carelessness.","causal_attribution":"The declarations' content and the court's findings are documented by the order; the order does not itself find which tool produced the citations."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Court hereby SANCTIONS Christopher I. Kachouroff and the law firm'; 'The Court hereby SANCTIONS Jennifer T. DeMaster in the amount of'; 'this Court does not extend the sanctions to Defendants'; 'no later than August 4, 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A federal judge ordered two attorneys representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell in a Colorado defamation case to pay $3,000 each'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 7 July 2025 the court held that Kachouroff and DeMaster violated Rule 11 and sanctioned Kachouroff and his law firm jointly $3,000 and DeMaster $3,000, payable by 4 August 2025, and did not extend the sanctions to Lindell or his companies.","causal_attribution":"Established by the operative part of the 7 July order; NPR relays it."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Kachouroff and DeMaster didn'; 'request for comment'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"NPR reported that Kachouroff and DeMaster did not respond to its request for comment.","causal_attribution":"NPR's own report of its request."}],"effects":[{"label":"two defence lawyers were fined $3,000 each for a brief with fabricated citations that lead counsel said had been run through AI","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129-10.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200). Order of 7 July 2025 (Doc. 383, 20 pages) read in full; the hearing transcript, the declarations and the draft exhibits it cites were not read separately.","independence_group":"coomer-v-lindell-d-colo-sanctions-orders"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129-8.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200). Order to show cause of 23 April 2025 (Doc. 309) read in full.","independence_group":"coomer-v-lindell-d-colo-sanctions-orders"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.npr.org/2025/07/10/nx-s1-5463512/ai-courts-lawyers-mypillow-fines","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200). NPR reports the 7 July order and quotes it; it adds that the lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.","independence_group":"coomer-v-lindell-d-colo-sanctions-orders"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used on the brief and which citations it introduced.","Whether either lawyer has faced bar disciplinary proceedings over the brief; the final order imposes fines only."],"geography":{"basis":"The brief was filed in, and the sanctions imposed by, the US District Court for the District of Colorado (both orders). Where the lawyers drafted the brief is not stated, so no event or affected-person country is recorded from the court seat.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's 7 July 2025 order documents that two defence lawyers were fined $3,000 each for a brief with nearly thirty defective citations, including non-existent cases, and quotes lead counsel's statement in court that the draft was run through AI and not checked.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's 7 July 2025 order quotes lead counsel's answer at the 21 April 2025 conference that after drafting the motion 'we ran it through AI' and that he did not check the citations, and quotes co-counsel's declaration that he believed some of the citations were likely from AI drafts. The filed brief contained citations of cases that do not exist, and the court found counsel gave no explanation of how those citations appeared absent the use of generative artificial intelligence or gross carelessness; it fined both lawyers for the brief. The AI output is thus connected to the sanctioned filing by counsel's own statements in the court record. Counsel later declared that he does not rely on AI to do legal research or find cases, and the court did not identify the tool.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Colorado federal court fines two MyPillow defence lawyers $3,000 each over a brief with fabricated citations; lead counsel had admitted running it through AI","summary":"In the defamation case Coomer v. Lindell in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, a brief that lawyers for Mike Lindell and MyPillow filed on 25 February 2025 contained nearly thirty defective citations, including citations of cases that do not exist. At a conference on 21 April 2025 lead counsel Christopher Kachouroff told Judge Nina Y. Wang that he had drafted the motion and then 'ran it through AI' and had not personally checked the citations. Counsel later said a wrong draft had been filed by mistake; the court was not persuaded. On 7 July 2025 the court found that he and co-counsel Jennifer DeMaster had violated Rule 11 and fined each $3,000 (Kachouroff jointly with his law firm). The court did not sanction Lindell or his companies.","incidentDate":"2025-02-25","incidentEndDate":"2025-07-07","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-04-23","aiSystem":"A generative AI tool that lead counsel said the draft brief was run through; the court record does not identify which tool was used for this brief","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's 7 July 2025 order, two defence lawyers were found to have violated Rule 11 and were each fined $3,000 after filing a brief with nearly thirty defective citations, including non-existent cases, which lead counsel had said was run through AI.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people sanctioned in the 7 July 2025 order: lead counsel, who told the court the draft was run through AI (counted as the AI user), and co-counsel who signed the brief, whose own use of AI is not established (counted as another person harmed). The law firm is an organisation and is not counted; the defendants were not sanctioned.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-01129-10.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court for the District of Colorado, Coomer v. Lindell, order on the order to show cause (Doc. 383), 7 July 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:29.9489+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:03:29.9489+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["colorado","federal-court","defamation-case","lawyers","fabricated-citations","rule-11-sanction","generative-ai"]},{"id":"2026-uk-grok-sexualised-images-two-women-police-cases-closed-no-suspect-identified","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'Grok obliged, moulding her profile photo onto a nude body wrapped in see-through plastic'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Grok, the platform’s AI chatbot, obliged by moulding her profile photo onto a nude body in see-through plastic'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'were created using the chatbot and shared without her consent'; 'after speaking out, she saw AI-generated images of herself had been created without her consent'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Explicit or sexualised images of the presenter were generated with Grok at anonymous X users' request and posted on X without her consent around New Year 2026, after she had publicly criticised Grok.","causal_attribution":"The presenter's account to TBIJ/The Observer and, separately, to BBC Wales in January 2026; TBIJ inspected the requesting account."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'After reporting her case to South Wales Police on 2 January'; 'wasn’t invited to give a statement until March'; 'Her case was closed after the police requests to X went unanswered'; 'Despite the efforts of investigators, no suspect could be identified'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'the investigation was closed in May'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The presenter reported the image to South Wales Police on 2 January 2026; she was not asked for a statement until March, police requests to X went unanswered, and the case was closed (in May, per The Observer) with the force saying no suspect could be identified.","causal_attribution":"TBIJ's account from messages it saw and the presenter; South Wales Police's statement confirms an investigation and no identified suspect but does not address the X requests."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'about 300 images and videos of her posted during the Grok scandal'; 'the last of which was dealt with by the Metropolitan Police'; 'She reported several anonymous posts to the police'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'after exploring all viable lines of enquiry, no suspect could be identified'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The broadcaster estimates about 300 Grok-made images and videos of her were posted during the wave, including by the account that targeted the presenter; she reported several, one involving Jeffrey Epstein to the Metropolitan Police, which said no suspect could be identified.","causal_attribution":"The broadcaster's estimate and the Met's statement, both via the TBIJ/Observer investigation."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'is now in pre-action legal correspondence with xAI, part of SpaceXAI, alleging misuse of her private information'; 'It has not been possible, in the time available, to look into any communications with South Wales Police'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'is now in pre-action legal correspondence with SpacexAI'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The presenter is in pre-action legal correspondence with xAI (SpaceXAI) alleging misuse of private information and breaches of data-protection law and the Equality Act; the company said it had not been possible in the time available to look into its communications with South Wales Police.","causal_attribution":"Reported from the correspondence described by TBIJ and the presenter's lawyer; no claim has been filed."}],"effects":[{"label":"a sexualised image of her generated by Grok from her profile photo at an anonymous user's request and posted on X","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"about 300 Grok-made images and videos of her posted to humiliate her","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"police investigations closed with no suspect identified after X did not answer information requests","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2026-09-29/grok-deepfakes-police-justice","kind":"investigative_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-09-30 (TBIJ, 29 September 2026, by Lydia Morrish); the original investigation, with police and company statements.","independence_group":"tbij-observer-investigation"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/the-women-taking-on-the-tech-giants-over-deepfakes-and-digital-abuse","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-09-30 (The Observer, 29 September 2026, same reporter, published in partnership with TBIJ); adds the May closure date.","independence_group":"tbij-observer-investigation"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98p4214577o","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-09-30 (BBC Wales, 13 January 2026, updated 14 January); interview with the presenter during the wave.","independence_group":"bbc-wales-january-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","justice","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Who requested the images and where they were located.","Whether X answered any later police request.","Whether the presenter files a claim and its outcome.","Dates of the individual images and videos of the broadcaster; The Observer places them 'during the Grok scandal over Christmas', so the series may have begun in late December 2025, before the presenter's dated 2 January 2026 report."],"geography":{"basis":"The presenter reported to South Wales Police and is described by TBIJ in her bedroom in Wales; the broadcaster reported to the Metropolitan Police (TBIJ). The images were generated on X at the request of anonymous accounts whose locations are not established (TBIJ says some accounts in the cases it examined were clearly UK-based), so no event country is recorded. No court proceeding yet.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a core case (Grok-generated sexualised images of two adult public figures, requested by anonymous users, with police investigations closed without a suspect). Both women spoke on the record to TBIJ and The Observer; the presenter also to BBC Wales in January 2026. The images are not reproduced or described beyond the sources' wording.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-30"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"TBIJ inspected the X account and posts that requested the images and describes Grok's automatic public reply; The presenter described the image to TBIJ and, in January 2026, to BBC Wales; South Wales Police and the Metropolitan Police confirm investigations into the reports. Grok's role in generating and posting the images is not disputed by any party quoted; xAI did not respond to TBIJ.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"UK: Grok-made sexualised images of a Welsh presenter and campaigner against deepfake abuse and of a commentator and broadcaster, requested by anonymous X accounts around New Year 2026; South Wales Police and the Metropolitan Police closed their investigations without identifying a suspect after X did not answer information requests; the presenter is in pre-action correspondence with xAI","summary":"The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Observer reported on 29 September 2026 that police investigations into sexualised images generated by X's chatbot Grok had failed to identify anyone. A Welsh presenter and campaigner against deepfake abuse, who had criticised Grok publicly on New Year's Eve 2025, saw an anonymous X user ask '@grok' to put her in a bikini made of cling film; Grok generated the image from her profile photo and posted it. She reported it to South Wales Police on 2 January 2026, was not asked for a statement until March, and was told officers had not heard back from X; the case was closed (in May, per The Observer) with the force saying no suspect could be identified. The same account also targeted a commentator and broadcaster, who estimates about 300 Grok images and videos of her were posted during the wave, including one alongside Jeffrey Epstein reported to the Metropolitan Police, which likewise said no suspect could be identified. The presenter is now in pre-action legal correspondence with xAI (part of SpaceXAI) alleging misuse of private information and breaches of data-protection law and the Equality Act; the company told her lawyers it had not been possible in the time available to look into its communications with South Wales Police. BBC Wales had reported in January 2026 that explicit images of the presenter were created with the chatbot and shared without her consent.","incidentDate":"2026-01-02","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-01-13","aiSystem":"Grok (xAI) image generation on X, responding to public '@grok' requests by editing the targeted women's photographs and posting the results","aiProduct":"Grok","aiCompany":"xAI (SpaceXAI)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Two women, a presenter and campaigner and a broadcaster, had sexualised images of themselves generated by Grok at anonymous users' request and posted on X; the presenter calls the experience terrifying and her lawyers say the company's failure to help the police aggravated her distress; the broadcaster says the images were designed to humiliate her; both police investigations closed without a suspect after X did not answer requests (TBIJ; The Observer; BBC Wales).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two depicted people, a presenter and campaigner and a commentator and broadcaster (TBIJ; The Observer). The MP also interviewed by TBIJ is counted in her own case (2026-asato-v-xai-grok). Exact 2.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2026-09-29/grok-deepfakes-police-justice","primarySourceLabel":"The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 29 September 2026: Failed by the police, Grok deepfake victims are seeking justice themselves","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-30T04:13:49.631225+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T04:13:49.631225+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["grok","xai","x-twitter","deepfakes","non-consensual-intimate-images","ai-generated-images","police","south-wales-police","metropolitan-police","ofcom","uk","depicted-or-impersonated"]},{"id":"2026-kumar-sdt-strike-off-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, Allegation 2.1 findings and the schedule of false/miscited authorities.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"RollOnFriday's listing of the bogus citations.","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Allegation 2.1 was found proved: Kumar's 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI, including the non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502', the miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' (in reality an IP case) and a misattributed Baxendale-Walker passage.","causal_attribution":"Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment; trade press accounts are consistent."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, Allegation 2.2 findings and the 13 April acceptance.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Allegation 2.2 was found proved: his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted and contained further errors, which he accepted on 13 April 2026.","causal_attribution":"Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, sanction and reasoning passages.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Outer Temple's case note confirming the outcome and the 'first SDT case on a lawyer's use of AI' framing.","relation":"context","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"On 25 August 2026 the SDT struck Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers with culpability 'very high', stating it would have struck him off on either allegation alone; the tribunal invoked Ayinde v Haringey LBC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin).","causal_attribution":"Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment; the 'first AI case' framing comes from the SRA's counsel and is attributed."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, conviction allegation and sentence passages.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"RollOnFriday's Isleworth Crown Court reference (recorded as a discrepancy; the judgment controls).","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The parallel ground was his 29 January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 — recorded by the judgment as at the Central Criminal Court (RollOnFriday says Isleworth Crown Court, a discrepancy) — sentenced on 26 April 2024 to a 12-month community order with 150 hours' unpaid work.","causal_attribution":"The conviction ground is established by the judgment; the convicting-court discrepancy across outlets is preserved."}],"effects":[{"label":"lawyer struck off after AI-generated false citations in his disciplinary defence","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/12884-2026-Kumar-.pdf","kind":"tribunal_judgment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Judgment PDF read on 2026-09-15 (25 Aug 2026): allegations, findings, sanction, panel, and the Ayinde v Haringey invocation.","independence_group":"sdt"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/lawyer-struck-off-for-using-fake-ai-generated-cases-before-sdt","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (4 Sep 2026).","independence_group":"legal-futures"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/foreign-lawyer-produced-ai-generated-false-citations-at-sdt/5127825.article","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (4 Sep 2026, Hyde).","independence_group":"law-gazette"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/first-lawyer-struck-ai-addiction","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (11 Sep 2026). Colour and the specific bogus citations; its 'AI addiction' framing is editorial joking, not a finding.","independence_group":"rollonfriday"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.outertemple.com/joshua-hitchens-acts-for-the-sra-in-the-first-solicitors-disciplinary-tribunal-case-on-a-lawyers-use-of-ai/","kind":"counsel_case_note","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (8 Sep 2026). SRA counsel's chambers' note: case number, dates, judgment link, and the 'first SDT case on a lawyer's use of AI' framing; participant-side account, recorded as such.","independence_group":"outer-temple"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The specific generative AI tool is not named in the inspected accounts.","The convicting court appears as the Central Criminal Court in the judgment and Isleworth Crown Court in RollOnFriday; the judgment controls but the discrepancy is unresolved in the inspected material.","Whether Kumar seeks to appeal the strike-off is not reported.","His employment status after the strike-off is not reported; the Law Gazette's employment background predates it."],"geography":{"basis":"Events: his practice and the SRA proceedings in England. Affected person: Kumar, on the Register of Foreign Lawyers in England and Wales. Court: the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal; the parallel conviction was at the Central Criminal Court (per the judgment; RollOnFriday's Isleworth Crown Court is a recorded discrepancy).","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an own-use, work-context adverse consequence with tribunal-found AI misconduct and a dated, career-ending sanction. This applies the charter's individual-review rule to the AI-sanction class; a class-level ruling is not required. Kumar is named in a public tribunal judgment; the parallel conviction ground is recorded for completeness and is not used to inflate the AI link. RollOnFriday's 'AI addiction' framing is recorded as editorial joking.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Tribunal-found: the 12 March 2026 Answer's misleading quotations and citations were produced with generative AI, and the 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors (accepted 13 April). The specific tool is not named in the inspected accounts.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"SDT strikes solicitor Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after AI-generated false citations in his SRA defence","summary":"On 25 August 2026 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after finding proved that his 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI — including a non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502' and a miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' that is actually an intellectual-property case — and that his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors. The tribunal said it would have struck him off on that allegation alone; the parallel ground was his January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. This is the SDT's first case on a lawyer's use of AI, per the SRA's counsel.","incidentDate":"2026-03-12","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-25","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-09-04","aiSystem":"Generative AI (tool not named in inspected accounts)","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Career-ending professional consequence for the lawyer who submitted AI-generated false citations in his own disciplinary defence: struck off the Register of Foreign Lawyers on 25 August 2026, with culpability rated 'very high'.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: Kumar himself, the AI user struck off (SDT judgment). No client or third-party harm is reported in the inspected sources and none is counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/12884-2026-Kumar-.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal judgment, SRA Ltd v Abhishek Kumar, Case No. 12884-2026 (25 Aug 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T06:18:05.203137+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:43.433309+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","justice","legal-profession","strike-off","fabricated-citations","sdt","own-use","uk"]}]}