{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-09T06:47:53.137Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"legal","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":10,"coverage":{"cases":10,"countries":3,"languages":4,"unknownLocation":3,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":1,"minors":1,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":10,"mixedRelations":2,"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-uk-upper-tribunal-asylum-appeal-chatgpt-grounds-fake-cases-invented-quotes-sra-self-report","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"the grounds of appeal were completely infected by the use of AI. In addition to the citation of fake cases, and paragraphs from cases which are not contained in those judgments, the Grounds of Appeal also quote paragraphs from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal which do not appear in that decision.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was pure invention, which was not to be found anywhere in Judge Balroop’s decision, yet criticism of it formed the basis for one aspect of ground (3) in the grounds of appeal.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"In this case, Mr Badar identified at least 18 separate errors in the grounds of appeal and withdrew three of the four grounds.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appellant's then solicitors drafted grounds of appeal that her counsel accepted were completely infected by the use of AI, citing fake cases and paragraphs not contained in the cited judgments and quoting passages from the First-tier Tribunal decision that do not appear in it; the tribunal found one purported quotation to be pure invention.","causal_attribution":"Established by the tribunal's own findings and its record of counsel's concession in the published decision. The Gazette repeats the decision and adds no independent origin."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Both were produced by a junior member of staff, namely a paralegal, using ChatGPT, which itself raises significant concerns about client confidentiality and legal privilege.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This occurred because Sarker Solicitors did not check the accuracy of the grounds of appeal, did not consider the grant of permission and did not check the accuracy of the skeleton argument.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"They accepted that AI was used to generate the grounds of appeal filed in the FtT and the skeleton argument filed in the UT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The grounds of appeal and skeleton argument were drafted by an unnamed paralegal working for east London firm Sarker Solicitors.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The tribunal found that both the grounds of appeal and the skeleton argument were produced by a junior member of staff, a paralegal, using ChatGPT, and that the firm did not check their accuracy; the solicitors had accepted that AI was used to generate both documents.","causal_attribution":"The product identification and the failure to check are the tribunal's findings in the decision, recorded with the solicitors' acceptance that AI generated the documents. The Gazette's statement that the drafter was an unnamed paralegal relays the decision (same independence group)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"A hearing was listed before Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Hobbs on 17 September 2025 to consider whether Judge Balroop had erred in law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Judge Hobbs adjourned the hearing, with directions which included the following:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We note that issues (2) to (4), which occupied a great deal of time at the hearing before us, only arose because of Sarker Solicitors’ inappropriate use of AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant withdrew the original grounds (1), (2) and (4).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"However, ground (3) discloses no error of law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant’s appeal therefore fails.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The judge declined to set aside permission to appeal but dismissed the appeal in any case. The Home Office was invited to file and serve any wasted costs application on Sarker Solicitors within 28 days.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The error-of-law hearing listed for 17 September 2025 was adjourned, three of the five issues at the final hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of the solicitors' use of AI, the appellant withdrew three of her four original grounds, and her appeal failed after her remaining and amended grounds were found to disclose no error of law.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history and disposition are directly established by the decision. The decision attributes the adjournment and the wasted hearing time to the solicitors' misuse of AI, and states separately that the surviving ground failed on its merits, so the dismissal itself is not attributed to the AI output."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and so we will say nothing about the professional conduct issues involved.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The respondent shall file and serve on Sarker Solicitors any wasted costs application, or confirmation that costs are not being pursued, within 28 days of this decision being sent to the parties.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Two individuals involved in filing court documents using ChatGPT which were riddled with mistakes and invented quotes have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and directs the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm within 28 days; no costs decision has been taken.","causal_attribution":"The self-reports and the costs directions are stated in the decision itself. The Gazette repeats them from the decision (same independence group), so the claim is documented, not corroborated. Whether the two individuals are the paralegal and the supervising solicitor is not stated."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"It would be misleading to describe them as having been caused by AI, rather than by the solicitors’ misuse of AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI, rather than a mere mis-citation of particular cases.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The tribunal said it would be misleading to describe the irregularities as caused by AI rather than by the solicitors' misuse of AI, while describing the case as one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal's own qualification, preserved as contrary evidence on causation: the decision places responsibility with the solicitors, and the Home Office's characterisation (at best negligent, at worst reckless) is relayed in the decision as a submission."}],"effects":[{"label":"Appellant's protection appeal pursued on AI-generated grounds containing fake cases and invented quotations; hearing adjourned and three of four grounds withdrawn","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Two individuals self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; wasted costs application against the firm invited","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2025-002601","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ut-decision-ui-2025-002601"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/duo-self-report-to-sra-over-grounds-of-appeal-infected-with-ai/5128148.article","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ut-decision-ui-2025-002601"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The date on which the paralegal generated the grounds of appeal is not stated; it falls between the First-tier decision of 23 April 2025 and the hearing listed for 17 September 2025.","Whether the two individuals who self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority are the paralegal and the supervising solicitor is not stated, and the outcome of any SRA consideration is unknown.","Whether the Home Office pursued wasted costs, and any amount, was not decided in the published decision.","What prompts were given to ChatGPT, and whether client material was entered into it, is not described; the tribunal only notes that the use raises confidentiality and privilege concerns.","Whether the appellant's appeal would have succeeded on properly drafted grounds cannot be known; the tribunal found the surviving and amended grounds disclosed no error of law."],"geography":{"basis":"The decision is an Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision heard at Field House, London, in an appeal against a UK Home Office refusal; the solicitors are described by the Gazette as an east London firm. The appellant is a Namibian national whose appeal concerns her removal from the UK, so her country is recorded as GB on the basis of the proceedings in which she was harmed, and Namibia is not recorded because no harm occurred there.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"The published Upper Tribunal decision (tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk, UI-2025-002601) and the Law Society Gazette report of 8 October 2026 were read in full on 2026-10-09. The decision records what ChatGPT generated (fake cases, misattributed paragraphs, invented quotations from the First-tier judge) and ties that output to the adjourned hearing, the wasted hearing time, the withdrawn grounds, the regulator self-reports and the costs directions. The appellant is anonymised by tribunal order and is described only by nationality and appeal type; the firm is named because the operative costs directions are addressed to it; the paralegal is unnamed. The tribunal's statement that the solicitors' misuse, not AI, caused the irregularities is preserved.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Upper Tribunal's published decision finds that the grounds of appeal and the skeleton argument filed on the appellant's behalf were produced by a paralegal using ChatGPT, and describes what that output contained: citations of fake cases, paragraphs not found in the cited judgments, and purported quotations from the First-tier judge's decision that the tribunal calls pure invention. The decision connects that output to the harm: the September 2025 hearing was adjourned after the Home Office queried the citation errors, three of the five issues at the final hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of the solicitors' use of AI, the appellant withdrew three of four grounds, and the tribunal invited a wasted costs application and noted two self-reports to the regulator. The FtT judge granted permission on those grounds while noting the misquotations, and the Upper Tribunal's decisions not to set aside permission and to refuse the new grounds were taken in the express context of the misrepresentations. The tribunal itself states that the irregularities were caused by the solicitors' misuse of AI rather than by AI, and the decision records the solicitors' own acceptance that AI was used. The firm's acceptance and the tribunal's findings come from one record, so the status is supported rather than corroborated by an independent source.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["acted_on_behalf","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"UK Upper Tribunal: solicitors' ChatGPT-drafted grounds in an asylum appeal cited fake cases and invented quotes; two individuals self-report to the SRA","summary":"A published Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision issued on 21 September 2026 records that the grounds of appeal and skeleton argument in a Namibian national's protection appeal were produced by a paralegal at her then solicitors using ChatGPT. The tribunal recorded her counsel's acceptance that the grounds cited fake cases, quoted passages absent from those judgments and attributed to the First-tier judge sentences he never wrote, and itself called one purported quotation pure invention. The September 2025 error-of-law hearing was adjourned, the appellant later withdrew three of her four original grounds, her remaining and amended grounds were found to disclose no error of law, and the tribunal directed the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; the Law Society Gazette reported the decision on 8 October 2026.","incidentDate":"2025-09-17","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-21","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-06","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, used by a paralegal to generate grounds of appeal and a skeleton argument (as found in the Upper Tribunal decision)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The tribunal records that the appellant's error-of-law hearing in September 2025 was adjourned, that three of the five issues at the eventual hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of her solicitors' inappropriate use of AI, that she withdrew three of her four original grounds, and that her appeal fails. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and directs the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm; no costs decision has been taken.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the appellant, whose appeal proceeded on AI-generated grounds she did not draft (the decision describes her as the appellant throughout). The paralegal who used ChatGPT and the supervising solicitor face professional consequences of their own conduct (self-report to the SRA, possible wasted costs) and are not counted as harmed persons; the two self-reporting individuals are not named as the paralegal and the solicitor in the decision.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"chatbot","primarySourceUrl":"https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2025-002601","primarySourceLabel":"Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), UI-2025-002601, decision issued 21 September 2026, published 6 October 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:28:56.311373+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:28:56.311373+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":[]},{"id":"2025-chandler-arizona-ai-victim-video-sentencing-vacated","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'FILED 09-30-2026'; 'AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART'; 'we affirm the manslaughter conviction but vacate the sentence for manslaughter, and remand for resentencing'; 'term of 10.5 years’ imprisonment on the count of manslaughter'; 'during a road rage confrontation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'An Arizona appeals court has upheld the manslaughter conviction of a man who fatally shot another driver during a road rage confrontation, but it has ordered a new sentencing hearing after finding a judge improperly relied on an AI-generated video portraying the victim.'; 'The court affirmed his conviction but vacated his 10.5-year prison sentence and sent the case back to Superior Court for resentencing.'; 'The case will return to Maricopa County Superior Court for a new sentencing hearing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'will have to be resentenced after the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated his sentence for a 2021 road rage killing in Chandler due to an AI video of the victim affecting the judge'; 'manslaughter conviction is upheld, but the 10 1/2-year sentence is vacated, and he will be resentenced.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 30 September 2026 the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the manslaughter conviction of a defendant who shot and killed a man during a road-rage confrontation, vacated his 10.5-year manslaughter sentence and remanded for resentencing.","causal_attribution":"The disposition stated in the opinion itself, also reported by two Arizona newsrooms, which date the killing to 2021, place it in Chandler and describe the victim as another driver."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶53: 'consideration of the AI video so prejudiced'; 'as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair'; 'Accordingly, we vacate the sentence for manslaughter and remand for resentencing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'In its decision announced Wednesday, the state Court of Appeals said the sentencing judge was prejudiced by the AI video, which made his decision fundamentally unfair.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'consideration of the AI video so prejudiced'; 'as to render the sentencing procedure'; 'improperly allowed at a sentencing hearing an artificial intelligence-generated video in which the victim is depicted talking about forgiveness and addressing the defendant directly.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The appeals court held that the sentencing judge's consideration of the AI video so prejudiced the defendant as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair.","causal_attribution":"Holding of the appeals court, read in the opinion; also reported by AZFamily and by the ABA Journal citing Reuters."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It included some real footage of the victim, but also had an AI-generated version of him delivering statements about his beliefs, forgiveness and his family.'; 'picture and voice profile'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'using a previously recorded video, a picture and a script written by'; 'sister. That video was played during the sentencing.'; 'was sentenced to 10 1/2 years in prison last year'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"¶36: 'recreated through AI that use[d] [his] picture and [his] voice profile'; ¶50: 'created from the imaginings of the victim’s sister'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'His family used voice recordings, videos and pictures of'; 'to recreate him in a video using AI'; 'said she wrote the words that the AI version read in court based on how forgiving she knew her brother to be.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The video, made by the victim's family and played at the sentencing hearing in 2025, used the victim's picture and voice profile and combined some real footage with an AI-generated version of the victim delivering statements about his beliefs, forgiveness and his family, from a script written by his sister.","causal_attribution":"Description of the video by ABC15 and AZFamily; the BBC reports the sister saying she wrote the words; the opinion confirms the picture and voice profile, the embedded real footage and the sister's authorship, and does not state the date of the hearing."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶41: 'I loved that AI. Thank you for that'; 'I feel that that was genuine; that his obvious forgiveness of'; 'For that reason I find the presumptive term [of 10.5 years in prison] is appropriate. That’s more than the State asked for.'; ¶38: 'she asked the sentencing judge to impose a slightly mitigated sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'The sentencing judge later said he \"loved\" the AI video and described it as \"genuine.\"'; 'The judge specifically referenced what he viewed as the victim'; 'the presumptive 10.5 years in prison for manslaughter'; 'a longer sentence than the nine years requested by prosecutors'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'obvious forgiveness'; 'expressed in'; 'before handing down the punishment'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'I loved that AI, thank you for that. As angry as you are, as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness'; 'I feel that that was genuine.'; 'seemed to appreciate the use of AI at the hearing'; '10-and-a-half years in prison on manslaughter charges.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The sentencing judge said he loved the AI video, described it as genuine and referred to the forgiveness it expressed, then imposed the presumptive 10.5-year term, longer than the nine years prosecutors had requested.","causal_attribution":"The sentencing transcript as quoted in the appeals opinion; also reported by ABC15 and AZFamily."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶53: 'video footage of the victim was permissible, allowing the presentation of the AI video constituted fundamental error'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'The appeals court specifically said the real video footage of the victim was permissible. Its ruling was focused on the AI-generated portions that portrayed the victim saying things he never actually said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appeals court said the embedded real video footage of the victim was permissible and that allowing the presentation of the AI video was fundamental error.","causal_attribution":"Stated in the opinion; ABC15 summarises the ruling as focused on AI-generated portions that portrayed the victim saying things he never said."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'He says the new sentence could range from seven to ten and a half years, and the case could still reach the state supreme court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The defense attorney said the new sentence could range from seven to ten and a half years and that the case could still reach the Arizona Supreme Court.","causal_attribution":"Statement by the defense attorney to ABC15."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶1: 'remand for resentencing because the AI video was not reliable'; ¶45: 'only evidence bearing a “minimal indicia of reliability” may be considered at sentencing'; ¶50: 'does not reflect actual events'; 'presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim’s sister'; ¶51: 'It erases the interpretive distance between the family’s belief about what the victim would have said and the victim’s own voice and opinions'; 'No disclaimer could cure that error.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The opinion gives unreliability as the ground: only evidence bearing minimal indicia of reliability may be considered at sentencing, and the AI video, apart from the embedded real footage, does not reflect actual events and presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim's sister, erasing the distance between the family's belief about what the victim would have said and the victim's own voice; the court wrote that no disclaimer could cure that error.","causal_attribution":"Reasoning of the appeals court, read in the opinion."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶34: 'did not object to the AI video at sentencing, we review only for fundamental error'; ¶52: 'And it clearly impacted the sentencing judge'; 'While the record does not reflect precisely how the AI video factored into the sentencing calculus, there is no question it played a role.'; ¶48: 'No Arizona case has addressed the admissibility of an'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'no Arizona case has addressed the admissibility of an AI-generated depiction of a victim offered as victim impact evidence'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The defendant had not objected to the AI video at sentencing, so the court reviewed for fundamental error; the opinion says the video clearly impacted the sentencing judge, that the record does not reflect precisely how it factored into the sentencing calculus and that there is no question it played a role, and that no Arizona case had addressed an AI-generated depiction of a victim offered as victim impact evidence.","causal_attribution":"Stated in the opinion. The opinion does not find that the sentence would have been shorter without the video."},{"id":"c9","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶36: 'recreated through AI that use[d] [his] picture and [his] voice profile'; 'is a true representation of who [he] was'; 'not how the courtroom portrayed [him]'; 'I believe in forgiveness and in God who forgives.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The opinion records that the AI rendering of the victim explained that it was a version of him recreated through AI using his picture and voice profile, said the video was a true representation of who he was and not how the courtroom portrayed him, and told the defendant that he believed in forgiveness and in God who forgives.","causal_attribution":"The appeals court's account of the video played at sentencing."},{"id":"c10","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶37: 'the maximum sentence authorized by the jury verdict'; ¶40: 'impose a mitigated term of 7 years’ imprisonment'; ¶13: 'concurrent, presumptive term of 2.25 years’ imprisonment on the count of endangerment'; ¶1: 'argument that the court erred in precluding text messages obtained from the victim’s phone'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The opinion records that the attorney for the victim's family asked for the maximum sentence authorized by the verdict and defense counsel for a mitigated seven-year term, and that the judge also imposed a concurrent 2.25-year term for endangerment; the court affirmed the conviction after rejecting a challenge to the exclusion of text messages from the victim's phone.","causal_attribution":"The appeals court's account of the sentencing record and its own disposition."},{"id":"c11","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'We were disappointed of course'; 'She says her family is now prepared to go through a second sentencing hearing.'; 'during the spring 2025 sentencing in Maricopa County Superior Court'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The victim's sister told FOX 10 Phoenix on 1 October 2026 that the family was disappointed by the ruling, and FOX 10 reports that the family is prepared to go through a second sentencing hearing; FOX 10 places the original sentencing in spring 2025.","causal_attribution":"Statement by the victim's sister to FOX 10 Phoenix and FOX 10's own description."},{"id":"c12","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'with the help of artificial intelligence, he returned earlier this month at his killer' (sentence continues: 's sentencing to deliver a victim's statement himself; BBC, 7 May 2025)","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"'Immediately after the sentencing, defense attorney'; 'appealed the decision.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"'In May 2025, FOX 10 reported on the sentencing of'; 'during the spring 2025 sentencing in Maricopa County Superior Court'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'This story comes from our reporting from May of 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The sentencing hearing took place in May 2025 (the BBC, writing on 7 May 2025, says the AI statement was delivered earlier that month; FOX 10 and ABC15 date their reporting on the sentencing to May 2025), and the defense attorney appealed immediately after the sentencing.","causal_attribution":"Dating by three newsrooms; the appeal is ABC15's report of the defense attorney's action. The day of the hearing is not stated in any inspected body."}],"effects":[{"label":"sentencing procedure found fundamentally unfair because the judge considered an AI-generated video of the victim; 10.5-year sentence vacated and resentencing ordered","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.abc15.com/news/arizona-appeals-court-throws-out-sentence-after-judge-relied-on-ai-generated-victim-video","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-02 (ABC15 Arizona, published 30 September 2026 and updated 1 October 2026 according to the page metadata). Own reporting with interviews of the victim's sister and the defense attorney.","independence_group":"abc15"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.azfamily.com/2026/10/01/court-appeals-vacates-chandler-road-rage-sentence-due-ai-victim-video/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-02 (AZFamily, published 30 September 2026 at 5:36 PM MST). Own report of the ruling.","independence_group":"azfamily"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/arizona-appeals-court-says-judge-wrongly-permitted-ai-generated-victim-video","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-02 and re-read on 2026-10-05 (ABA Journal, 1 October 2026), which relays a Reuters story and quotes the opinion; Reuters itself returned HTTP 401.","independence_group":"reuters"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/30/state_v._horcasitas.pdf","kind":"court_opinion","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English on 2026-10-05: the published opinion of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CR 25-0191, filed 30 September 2026 (16 pages), from the copy stored by CourtListener. The Arizona courts' own address for the file returned HTTP 403. The case caption, and so this address, carries the defendant's surname; the record text does not.","independence_group":"arizona-court-of-appeals-opinion"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-manslaughter-sentencing-vacated-due-use-ai-victim-impact-statement","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-05 (FOX 10 Phoenix, published 30 September 2026, updated 1 October 2026). Quotes the opinion and carries its own 1 October interview with the victim's sister.","independence_group":"fox10phoenix"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq808px90wxo","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-09 (BBC News, published 7 May 2025 per page metadata). Own reporting with an interview of the victim's sister and a video of the AI statement; dates the hearing to earlier in May 2025.","independence_group":"bbc"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/chandler/defense-attorney-appeals-after-ai-video-used-in-court-sentencing","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-09 (ABC15 Arizona, published 9 May 2025 per page metadata). Same newsroom as s1; interviews with the defense attorney and the family's attorney.","independence_group":"abc15"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The day of the May 2025 sentencing hearing. The month rests on the BBC's 7 May 2025 report that the AI statement was delivered 'earlier this month' and on FOX 10 Phoenix's 'In May 2025'; an ABC15 feature dated 5 May 2025 says 'last month', which would place the hearing in April 2025, and no inspected body gives the day.","The AI tools used to make the video; the opinion does not identify them.","How far the video affected the length of the sentence: the opinion says the record does not reflect precisely how it factored in.","The outcome of resentencing, its date, and whether either party seeks review by the Arizona Supreme Court; no resentencing date had been reported by 9 October 2026."],"geography":{"basis":"The sentencing took place in the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona, in May 2025, and the appeal was decided by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One (opinion; ABC15; AZFamily; BBC). The defendant's residence is not stated, so affected_person_countries stays empty.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete adverse consequence of an AI-generated depiction used in a criminal proceeding: an appeals court found that the video made a May 2025 sentencing fundamentally unfair and vacated the sentence. The ruling is read in the opinion itself and reported by independent Arizona and national newsrooms; names of the deceased victim, his family, the judge and the defendant are left out of the public text and claims. Reviewed on 2026-10-09 to record the AI system's relation to the harmed defendant (the rendering impersonated the victim toward him and informed the judge's sentencing decision about him) and the month of the hearing.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Output: the appeals opinion describes an artificial-intelligence video rendering of the victim, recreated from his picture and voice profile and played at sentencing with embedded real footage, in which the AI version of the victim addressed the defendant and said he believed in forgiveness (claims c3, c9); ABC15, AZFamily, FOX 10 Phoenix, the BBC and the ABA Journal (relaying Reuters) describe the same AI-generated video, made by the victim's family from a script the sister wrote. The tools are not identified. Relation to the affected person: the rendering impersonated the deceased victim toward the court and addressed the defendant directly, so the defendant is a person toward whom generated material impersonated someone else (depicted_or_impersonated). Human use: the sentencing judge said he loved the AI video, felt it was genuine and pointed to the victim's obvious forgiveness before fixing the term (c4), and the opinion finds that the video clearly impacted the judge and played a role in the sentencing calculus (c8), so the AI output informed the judge's sentencing decision about the defendant (informed_decision_about). Consequence: the judge imposed the presumptive 10.5-year term, more than the State asked for (c4), and the appeals court held that his consideration of the AI video made the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair and vacated the sentence (c2, c5). The opinion does not find that the sentence would have been shorter without the video (c8).","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Arizona appeals court vacates a manslaughter sentence, holding that an AI-generated video of the deceased victim made a 2025 sentencing fundamentally unfair","summary":"At a sentencing hearing in May 2025 in Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona, the family of a man killed in a 2021 road-rage shooting in Chandler played a video that combined real footage with an AI-generated likeness and voice of the victim delivering a script written by his sister, including statements of forgiveness addressed to the defendant. The judge said he loved the video, described it as genuine and referred to the forgiveness it expressed, then imposed the presumptive 10.5-year term for manslaughter, longer than the nine years the prosecutor had requested. The defense attorney appealed immediately. On 30 September 2026 the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but vacated the sentence, holding that the AI video was not reliable and that the judge's consideration of it so prejudiced the defendant that the sentencing procedure was fundamentally unfair. The opinion says the record does not show precisely how the video factored into the sentence, and that there is no question it played a role. The case returns to the trial court for resentencing; as of 1 October 2026 no new sentencing date had been set.","incidentDate":"2025-05-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-09-30","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI tools used by the victim's family to generate a likeness and voice of the deceased victim from a recorded video, a picture and a written script","aiProduct":"Unidentified video tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Arizona Court of Appeals held, in a published opinion of 30 September 2026, that the sentencing judge's consideration of an AI-generated video of the victim at the May 2025 hearing prejudiced the defendant and made the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair, vacating his 10.5-year sentence and ordering resentencing.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the defendant whose sentencing the appeals court found fundamentally unfair. He did not use the AI tool, so he is counted among people harmed through others' use. The victim's family is not counted because no harm to them from the AI video is reported. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AZ","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.abc15.com/news/arizona-appeals-court-throws-out-sentence-after-judge-relied-on-ai-generated-victim-video","primarySourceLabel":"ABC15 Arizona, 30 September 2026: \"Arizona appeals court throws out sentence after judge relied on AI-generated victim video\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-02T03:20:58.232078+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:23:23.878144+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-video","arizona","courts","deepfake","informed-decision","justice","others-use","sentencing","victim-impact-statement"]},{"id":"2025-deltona-florida-gaggle-alert-student-arrest-school-laptop-threat","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Deputies said a 15-year-old wrote a threat on his school laptop to bring a gun to ... and shoot another student.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The threat triggered a Gaggle alert, which notified the school resource deputy, who responded and detained the teen before he got on the bus to go home.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"That threat triggered a Gaggle alert and immediately notified the school resource deputy.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 12 September 2025 a 15-year-old high school student in Deltona, Florida was detained after typing a threat on a school-issued laptop to bring a gun to school and shoot another student, and a Gaggle alert notified the school resource deputy, who detained the student before boarding the bus home.","causal_attribution":"Police account relayed by two outlets that trace to one Sheriff's Office statement. The alert is reported as the trigger of the deputy's response."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Both students were arrested on second-degree felony charges and transported to the Volusia Family Resource Center for processing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"They will be charged with second-degree felony charges, VSO said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The student was arrested on a second-degree felony charge.","causal_attribution":"Arrest follows the alert and detention in the police account. The source does not separate the alert from the content of the text as cause. Fox 35 says the students 'will be charged'; the filed charge is not confirmed."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The teen admitted he typed the threat, didn’t mean it, and was just angry about being picked on.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student admitted typing the threat, said it was not meant, and said the motive was anger about being picked on.","causal_attribution":"Reported statement from the Sheriff's Office. It is not an independent account by the student or family."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"With the help of artificial intelligence , technology can dip into online conversations and immediately notify both school officials and law enforcement.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Associated Press reporting describes school-monitoring software 'like Gaggle and Lightspeed Alert' as using artificial intelligence to watch students' online conversations and notify school officials and law enforcement.","causal_attribution":"Description of a software class. It does not establish the mechanism of the alert in this case."}],"effects":[{"label":"Felony arrest of a minor following an automated alert","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.wesh.com/article/volusia-county-school-threats-mental-health-awareness/66929047","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Body read from a Wayback capture of the same URL because the live page returned 451.","independence_group":"vso-volusia-2025-09-12"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/two-volusia-county-students-arrested-school-threats-officials-say","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"vso-volusia-2025-09-12"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/schools-using-ai-surveillance-protect-110342650.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Associated Press investigation on AI school surveillance, cited only for the description of software like Gaggle. It does not mention this student.","independence_group":"ap-ai-surveillance-2025"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether the alert in this case was generated by an AI model, by keyword rules, or reviewed by a Gaggle or school human reviewer before reaching the deputy.","Outcome of the felony charge, any court or school discipline, and the family's account.","The Sheriff's Office statement (a Facebook post per Fox 35) was read only through outlet rewrites.","Whether the student's family disputes the arrest is not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"Sources place the events at a high school in Deltona, Volusia County, Florida, and name the county Sheriff's Office.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Three inspected news bodies: two rewrites of one Sheriff's Office statement for the event and one AP piece for the product description. The record states the police account as reported and does not treat the alert as established cause of the arrest.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Sheriff's Office account carried by local outlets says a Gaggle alert notified the deputy. AP reporting describes monitoring software like Gaggle as AI-assisted in general. No source states how this specific alert was generated or reviewed.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Deltona, Florida: Gaggle school-laptop alert leads to felony arrest of a 15-year-old over a typed gun threat the student said was not serious","summary":"According to a Volusia County Sheriff's Office account carried by local outlets, a 15-year-old high school student in Deltona, Florida was arrested on 12 September 2025 after typing a written threat to bring a gun to school on a school-issued laptop. The Gaggle student-monitoring software raised an alert that notified the school resource deputy, who detained the student before the student boarded the bus home. The student was arrested on a second-degree felony charge (one outlet says the charge was still to be filed). The student reportedly admitted typing the text, said it was not meant seriously and said the motive was anger about being picked on. Outcome of the charge and the exact Gaggle role in generating this alert are not reported.","incidentDate":"2025-09-12","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-09-13","aiSystem":"Gaggle, a student-safety monitoring service for school-provided devices (school-monitoring software of the kind Associated Press reporting describes as using artificial intelligence)","aiProduct":"Gaggle school monitoring","aiCompany":"Gaggle","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Sheriff's Office says a Gaggle alert on the student's typed threat led a deputy to detain the student before the bus ride home, and the student was arrested on a second-degree felony charge (police account; the student reportedly said the text was not meant seriously).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One student (the 15-year-old arrested). The other Volusia students arrested in the same days are not counted: the sources tie a Gaggle alert only to this student.","victimAgeRange":"minor","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.wesh.com/article/volusia-county-school-threats-mental-health-awareness/66929047","primarySourceLabel":"WESH 2, Volusia County deputies arrest four children accused of making school threats","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T12:42:12.865194+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:00.789359+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-br-meu-inss-rural-worker-retirement-claim-rejected","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"instantly turned down because the system identified","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"teve seu pedido negado de forma automática devido a um erro de identificação, sendo registrada como homem no sistema","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In a retirement claim filed through the Meu INSS app, the request was rejected because the system identified the claimant as a man.","causal_attribution":"Rest of World reports the rejection as caused by the system's identification of the claimant as a man. The source is the claimant's account as reported by the journalist. The Portuguese rewrite depends on the same article. No decision record was seen."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"in February was approved in March","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"went straight to INSS directors, who identified and corrected the mistake in the app.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The rejected retirement claim was filed in February and approved in March after INSS directors corrected the mistake in the app.","causal_attribution":"The article ties the approval to the claimant's contact at an agricultural workers' confederation, and states that the case went straight to INSS directors. It does not say the contact routed it."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"had led to numerous rejections, with few options for recourse","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"proving everything, and [the benefit] still gets denied. It’s a humiliation,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Rest of World reports that minor errors in the claimant's claims filed through the app led to numerous rejections, and quotes the claimant saying that despite having all the documents proving a health condition the benefit is still denied.","causal_attribution":"The article attributes the earlier rejections to minor errors in claims filed through the app. Dates of these rejections and whether an AI component made them are not stated."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Each automated decision is based on specified legal criteria, ensuring that the standards set by the social security legislation are respected,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Some policyholders have been misusing the program, filing multiple requests in the hopes of obtaining different results, the spokesperson said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"An INSS spokesperson told Rest of World that each automated decision follows specified legal criteria, and that some policyholders file multiple requests hoping for different results.","causal_attribution":"This is the institution's stated position and does not address the claimant's specific rejection."}],"effects":[{"label":"Retirement claim rejected, approved after INSS directors corrected the error","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://restofworld.org/2025/brazil-ai-social-security-app-rejected/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full body read from a Wayback capture (20260128230439id_) after the live URL returned HTTP 429. Original English.","independence_group":"restofworld-daros"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://olhardigital.com.br/2025/04/25/pro/sistema-de-ia-do-inss-causa-recusas-injustas-de-beneficios/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Portuguese rewrite of the Rest of World article (it credits Rest of World). Read in the original Portuguese by the reviewing agent without a human translator. Adds no independent reporting.","independence_group":"restofworld-daros"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["public_services"],"unknowns":["Whether the wrong-sex rejection came from an AI model, a rule engine or a data-matching step is not established.","The article gives the filing month as February without a year. The year 2025 is read from the article date (24 April 2025) and its present-tense context.","Dates and causes of the claimant's earlier sick-pay rejections are not stated, so this record covers only the February 2025 retirement claim.","No INSS decision record or independent confirmation of the claimant's account was inspected. The Portuguese rewrite adds no independent reporting.","Rest of World's statement that the app rejected requests from hundreds of people is an unsourced aggregate and is not counted."],"geography":{"basis":"The claimant is described as living in a remote town in northeast Brazil. Where the claim was filed from is not stated, so no event country is recorded. No court is involved.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["BR"]},"publication":{"basis":"A named-outlet journalist interviewed the claimant and the INSS, and the article reports a concrete rejected claim, its reported cause and its correction. The article gives the filing and approval months (February, March) without a year, so 2025 is inferred from its 24 April 2025 date. The AI role is reported and unverified, so claims are attributed and the record is marked alleged.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Rest of World describes Meu INSS as an AI-powered app (computer vision and natural language processing over uploaded documents) and reports that the claim was rejected because the system identified the claimant as a man. The article does not say whether a model or a fixed rule produced this rejection, and the INSS describes the decisions as automated.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Brazil: rural worker's retirement claim rejected through the Meu INSS app after the system reportedly recorded a wrong sex","summary":"In February (2025, inferred from the article date) a retirement claim filed through Brazil's Meu INSS social security app for a former sugarcane worker in northeast Brazil was rejected. Rest of World reported that the request was turned down because the system identified the claimant as a man. The claimant, who has chronic illnesses, is quoted saying the benefit is still denied despite complete documents, and Rest of World reports that minor errors in earlier claims through the app had led to numerous rejections. The retirement claim was approved in March after INSS directors corrected the mistake, which the claimant attributed to a contact at an agricultural workers' confederation. The INSS states that automated decisions follow specified legal criteria.","incidentDate":"2025-02-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-04-24","aiSystem":"Meu INSS app (AI-assisted automated analysis of benefit claims)","aiProduct":"Meu INSS app","aiCompany":"Dataprev (developer of the app, per Rest of World); INSS deploys it","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to Rest of World, a retirement claim was rejected through the app, reportedly because the system recorded the wrong sex, and was approved in March after INSS directors corrected the error.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One claimant with a rejected and later corrected retirement claim. Rest of World says the app has rejected requests from hundreds of people for minor errors, which is an unsourced aggregate and is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://restofworld.org/2025/brazil-ai-social-security-app-rejected/","primarySourceLabel":"Rest of World, 'Brazil's AI-powered social security app is wrongly rejecting claims', 24 April 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T12:42:06.218216+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:57.309447+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-ar-esquel-criminal-judgment-annulled-judge-generative-ai-draft","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"decidió el miércoles anular de oficio una sentencia dictada el 4 de junio pasado","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"anular de oficio una sentencia porque el juez la delegó en un ChatGPT","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"La sentencia anulada había condenado al imputado a dos años y seis meses de prisión efectiva por robo simple","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 4 June 2025 a criminal judge in Esquel convicted a defendant of simple robbery and sentenced the defendant to two years and six months of effective imprisonment, and the Penal Chamber of Esquel later annulled that judgment.","causal_attribution":"Sources give the annulment as the chamber's response to the judge's AI use."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Aquí tienes el punto IV reeditado, sin citas y listo para copiar y pegar","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"el magistrado utilizó la IA generativa, ni más ni menos, que en un aspecto central de la resolución en crisis como es la resolución de las nulidades de dos pruebas esenciales en el proceso","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"el juez de primera instancia incluyó accidentalmente una frase que revela el uso de un asistente de Inteligencia Artificial (IA) generativa","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The judgment contained the phrase “Aquí tienes el punto IV reeditado, sin citas y listo para copiar y pegar”, which the chamber took to show generative-AI use, including on the rulings on the nullity of two essential pieces of evidence.","causal_attribution":"The chamber's finding, as quoted in the press, connects the phrase to AI use. The full ruling text was not read."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"anular tanto la sentencia como el juicio que la precedió","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"declaración de nulidad de la sentencia y del juicio que la precede, con todo lo que ello significa para los justiciables","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"ordenando que el proceso se realice nuevamente con la intervención de otro magistrado","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"el tribunal ordenó reenviar el caso a otro juez penal, prohibiendo al Ministerio Público Fiscal exhibir en el nuevo juicio los videos omitidos en el anterior","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A raíz de esto deberá realizarse nuevamente el juicio, con otro juez","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The chamber annulled the judgment and the preceding trial and ordered a new trial before another judge, and barred the prosecution from showing at the new trial the videos omitted at the first.","causal_attribution":"The annulment is attributed by the chamber to the judge's undisclosed and unsupervised AI use, which the chamber said prevented control of the judge's reasoning."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"remitir las actuaciones al Superior Tribunal de Justicia de Chubut (STJ), que deberá investigar el alcance ético y disciplinario de la conducta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"pudo haber incumplido los recaudos de confidencialidad exigidos por el Acuerdo Plenario N° 5435 del STJ, al incluir nombres de las partes, testigos y peritos en el texto procesado por el asistente","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The chamber referred the matter to the Chubut Superior Court of Justice to investigate the judge's conduct and said the judge may have breached that court's confidentiality rules by including the names of parties, witnesses and experts in the text processed by the assistant.","causal_attribution":"The confidentiality point is the chamber's stated possibility and was not established as fact."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"presumiblemente ChatGPT","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"el juez la delegó en un ChatGPT","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Press coverage identifies the assistant as ChatGPT (La Nación as presumed, Perfil without qualification).","causal_attribution":"The ruling as quoted refers to a generative-AI assistant. The product name comes from the press."}],"effects":[{"label":"Conviction and trial annulled and retrial ordered; the chamber cites serious consequences for the parties","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/el-juez-de-esquel-que-uso-chat-para-redactar-una-sentencia-sera-investigado-nid17102025/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Full body read in the original Spanish (17 October 2025) by the reviewing agent without a human translator. Reports the appellate ruling; whether the journalist saw the ruling text is not stated.","independence_group":"esquel-camara-ruling"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://documento.errepar.com/actualidad/justicia-anulada-se-invalida-un-fallo-por-el-uso-indebido-de-la-ia-20251016143159365","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Article body is embedded in the page data and was decoded into bodies/gh-4-body.txt (16 October 2025). Read in Spanish without a human translator. It quotes the ruling. The linked full text of the ruling (documento.errepar.com/jurisprudencia/...) is gated and was not read.","independence_group":"esquel-camara-ruling"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.perfil.com/noticias/nea/inteligencia-artificial-anulan-sentencia-porque-un-juez-uso-un-chatgpt-y-una-frase-lo-delato.phtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Full body read in Spanish (17 October 2025) without a human translator. It relays a statement of the Ministerio Publico Fiscal of Chubut and quotes the ruling.","independence_group":"esquel-camara-ruling"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The full text of the ruling was not read (the Errepar copy is gated), so all findings are as reported by three outlets that share the same underlying ruling.","The share of the judgment written by the assistant is unknown. The chamber said the pasted text leaves a gap too wide to tell.","The specific AI product is not established. No chat log was seen.","The annulment date of 15 October 2025 is derived from La Nación's 'el miércoles' (article of 17 October 2025) and the metadata of a gated Errepar ruling page; no cited article states the date.","The outcome of the Superior Court review and the date of the new trial are not reported in the sources read.","The defendant's own view of the annulment and any effect of the delay on the defendant or on other parties to the case is not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"The court is the Penal Chamber of Esquel in Chubut province, and La Nación calls the ground for the annulment unprecedented in Argentine justice. The defendant's residence and where the judge used the assistant are not stated.","court_countries":["AR"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Three Spanish-language outlets report the same appellate ruling, which annulled a criminal judgment and trial after a pasted assistant phrase exposed undisclosed generative-AI use. The chamber's stated consequences for the parties (annulment and a repeated trial) are reported, and the effect on the defendant is not. The outlets share one reporting chain, so claims are attributed.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The appellate chamber, as quoted by three outlets, found a pasted chat phrase in the ruling and concluded that a generative-AI assistant was used. The chamber described delegation of the decision as probable. The product name ChatGPT is stated by one outlet as presumed and by another without qualification.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Argentina: appellate chamber annuls a robbery judgment and trial after the trial judge left a generative-AI chat phrase in the ruling","summary":"On 4 June 2025 a criminal judge in Esquel, Chubut province, convicted a defendant of simple robbery and imposed two years and six months of effective imprisonment. On 15 October 2025 the Penal Chamber of Esquel annulled the judgment and the trial, ordering a new trial before another judge. The chamber found that the ruling contained a pasted phrase from a generative-AI assistant (“Aquí tienes el punto IV reeditado, sin citas y listo para copiar y pegar”), that the AI had been used on the rulings on the nullity of two essential pieces of evidence, and that the judge had not exercised human supervision or recorded the use. Perfil's headline describes the assistant as ChatGPT and La Nación's text as presumably ChatGPT; the quoted ruling and the prosecution office statement refer only to a generative-AI assistant. The chamber referred the judge's conduct to the Chubut Superior Court of Justice for ethical and disciplinary review.","incidentDate":"2025-06-04","incidentEndDate":"2025-10-15","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-10-16","aiSystem":"Generative AI assistant (reported as ChatGPT)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Per press reports of the appellate ruling, the trial and conviction were annulled because of the judge's undisclosed generative-AI use and the case must be tried again before another judge. The chamber described serious consequences of this for the parties, the public and the State. The effect on the defendant is not reported and the annulment may favour the defendant.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"unquantified","affectedCountEvidence":"The chamber refers to serious consequences of the annulment for 'los justiciables' (the parties to the proceeding), the public and the State without a count. No inspected source reports harm to the defendant specifically, and annulment of a conviction may be favourable to the defendant.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/el-juez-de-esquel-que-uso-chat-para-redactar-una-sentencia-sera-investigado-nid17102025/","primarySourceLabel":"La Nación, 'El juez de Esquel que usó Chat para redactar una sentencia será investigado', 17 October 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T12:42:03.091102+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:55.894793+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-lacey-insurance-discovery-relief-denied-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 8 para 20: 'I have struck, and decline to'; 'consider, any of the supplemental briefs'; 'I decline to award any of the discovery relief'; p. 7 para 17: 'The initial, undisclosed use of AI products to'; 'generate the first draft of the brief was flat-out wrong.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought because her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research.","causal_attribution":"The order itself connects the struck briefs and denial of relief to counsel's undisclosed AI use, failure to cite-check and re-submission of the defective brief (paras 17-20)."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 2 para 5: 'approximately nine of the 27 legal'; 'citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect in some way. At least two of the'; 'authorities cited do not exist at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order records that about nine of the 27 citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect and that at least two cited authorities do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The special master's own after-the-fact review, as recorded in the order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 10 para 24: 'clearly not at fault for the AI debacle'; 'She will not, however, be financially'; para 25: 'I decline to order any sanction'; conclusion: 'aggregate amount of $31,100.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order makes the two firms jointly and severally pay $31,100 in aggregate, states the client was not at fault and will not be financially responsible for the awards, and declines any sanction against individual lawyers.","causal_attribution":"Allocation of financial responsibility is directly recorded in the order."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, declaration p. 46 para 3: 'generative AI capabilities found in CoCounsel and Westlaw Precision and'; p. 47 para 4: 'It is unclear to me whether'; 'research tools I utilized returned some erroneous information.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied in part on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he cannot tell whether particular errors arose from his transcription or from a tool.","causal_attribution":"The declarant's own statement; the order does not determine which tool produced each error."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, joint response section II p. 76: 'None of the K&L Gates attorneys who worked on the subject brief used any'; order p. 3 para 7: 'the attorneys at K&L Gates didn’t'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The second firm states that none of its lawyers who worked on the brief used or had access to AI tools or knew that AI had been used until the special master's inquiries.","causal_attribution":"The firm's own submission; the order records that the special master had no reason to doubt the sworn statements."}],"effects":[{"label":"Loss of requested discovery relief after the claimant's briefs were struck","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English; read on 2026-10-09 from the retained PDF text of the 77-page filing: order pp. 2-10, appendix inventory p. 11, originating lawyer's declaration pp. 46-47 and the firms' joint response section II p. 76. PDF page 1 yielded no text. Not every appended exhibit was read.","independence_group":"lacey-ecf119"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which tool, if any, produced each erroneous citation or quotation; the declarant says he cannot distinguish his transcription errors from tool output.","Whether the requested discovery relief would have been granted had the briefs been accurate.","The later course of the insurance action and where the AI-assisted drafting took place.","Paragraph 1 of the order (PDF page 1) was not inspected because the page yielded no extractable text."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was issued by a special master in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The record does not state where the AI-assisted drafting took place or where the claimant lives, so event and affected-person countries are left unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"A filed court order directly establishes that the claimant's briefs were struck and her discovery relief denied because of AI-generated false citations in her lawyers' filings, with the monetary award placed on the firms. The tool identities are attributed to the declarant and kept as reported.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The filed order records that a lawyer used AI tools to generate the research outline for the claimant's brief and that the resulting brief contained false citations and quotations (about nine of 27 wrong, at least two non-existent). The special master read those authorities, found they did not exist, and on that basis struck the briefs and denied the discovery relief, writing that the use of AI affirmatively misled him. The declarant names CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini but cannot say which tool produced each error, so the per-tool contribution is unestablished.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Insurance claimant loses discovery relief after her lawyers file AI-generated false citations; special master's order sanctions the two firms $31,100","summary":"In an order dated 5 May 2025 and filed on 6 May in Lacey v. State Farm (C.D. Cal.), a special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research: about nine of 27 citations were wrong and at least two cited authorities did not exist. One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he could not tell whether particular errors came from his transcription or from a tool; co-counsel at the second firm say they used no AI tools and did not know AI had been used. The order makes the two firms jointly pay $31,100, states the client was not at fault and will not bear the awards, and imposes no penalty on individual lawyers.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-05","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-05-06","aiSystem":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, named in one lawyer's sworn declaration as the generative AI tools used for the research outline; the order itself refers to 'various AI tools' and does not establish which tool produced each error","aiProduct":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Gemini (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated citations; the $31,100 award falls on the firms, not on her.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One claimant whose briefs were struck and whose discovery relief was denied (order paras 20 and 24). She did not use the AI tools herself, so participant users is 0. The lawyers and firms bear the monetary award but are not counted as harmed persons.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Lacey v. State Farm General Insurance Co., C.D. Cal. 2:24-cv-05205, ECF 119: special master's sanctions order dated 5 May 2025, filed 6 May 2025 (with appendix)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T10:29:01.113121+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:12:38.363121+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025","ai-citations","court-sanction","legal-research","consequential-response"]},{"id":"2025-stephens-county-oklahoma-judge-chatgpt-fake-citations-paternity-order","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Wheeler denied a request from one of the parents' attorneys to have the other parent undergo a psychological test—and in his order denying the request, he pointed to multiple previous Oklahoma cases he said backed him up.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The 2025 order in a child paternity case'; 'He came under scrutiny after he reprimanded attorney [the attorney] last November in an order in the paternity case for asking for a psychological evaluation of the child’s father.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The issue came to light after a request for a mental evaluation was denied and a subsequent court order was filed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In November 2025, in a child paternity and custody case, Judge Wheeler issued an order denying a request by one parent's attorney for a psychological evaluation of the other parent, citing Oklahoma cases he said supported the decision.","causal_attribution":"Court history as reported by The Oklahoman and KFOR and described by the mother; the order itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge told the OSBI he only used ChatGPT for research and created the order himself, DA Jason Hicks wrote. The judge, however, also “indicated that at least two of the case citations included in his order and produced by ChatGPT do not exist.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Stephens County District Attorney Jason Hicks says Wheeler admitted to OSBI agents he cited \"at least two\" cases ChatGPT fed him that \"do not exist.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Hicks wrote that Wheeler acknowledged using case citations generated by ChatGPT and that at least two citations included in the order did not exist.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler used OpenAI's ChatGPT for research while drafting the order, which cited two cases that do not exist, according to state records.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"According to the district attorney's 17 August 2026 letter, the judge told the OSBI that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and indicated that at least two case citations in the order, produced by ChatGPT, do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The judge's own statement to investigators as relayed in the district attorney's letter; all four reports rely on that letter, which was not read. The judge's attorney declined to comment."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge issued the reprimand “for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics” and cautioned that future similar filings may be subject to further sanctions.'; '[The attorney] challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February. He told justices that Wheeler based his order on two cases, Cummings v. Cimarron Elevator Co. and Hawkins v. Linhart, that do not exist.'; '[The attorney] dismissed his challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. Wheeler is no longer involved in the paternity case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'She said her attorney at the time challenged the ruling and began reviewing the legal authorities cited in the order.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The order reprimanded the attorney who had asked for a psychological evaluation of the child's father 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics' and warned of further sanctions; that attorney challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, saying it relied on two nonexistent cases, and dismissed the challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. The mother told News 9 that her attorney at the time challenged the ruling.","causal_attribution":"The Oklahoman's account of the court filings and the mother's account to News 9; the Supreme Court filings were not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'[The mother] said learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child.'; '“Then it became very concerning to me that somebody would do something like that over a child custody case,” she said.'; '“He then turned around and decided to recuse himself from my case,” she said. “He called my attorney that I had at the time and apologized to him.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The mother told News 9 that learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child, and that the judge later recused himself from her case and apologised to her attorney.","causal_attribution":"The mother's first-person account in a broadcast interview."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints.'; 'The OSBI also looked into allegations “that Judge Wheeler offered to amend the order in exchange for a dismissal of a writ seeking relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court” and that he “eavesdropped on jury deliberations,” the DA disclosed in the letter.'; 'Prosecutors in the AG’s office “thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution,” the AG’s press secretary, Leslie Berger, said on Sept. 2.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The Criminal Justice Division of the Attorney General’s Office thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution. The Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary possess ultimate jurisdiction over disciplinary actions for allegations of inappropriate behavior by judges regardless of whether the behavior constitutes a violation of a criminal statute.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Council on Judicial Complaints, including allegations that he offered to amend the order in exchange for dismissal of the writ and that he eavesdropped on jury deliberations; the attorney general's office said the evidence did not support criminal prosecution and that judicial discipline rests with the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary.","causal_attribution":"District attorney's letter and attorney general's statement as reported; no disciplinary finding has been made."}],"effects":[{"label":"the mother faced an order denying a psychological-evaluation request, with the judge citing authorities reported to have been generated by ChatGPT","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the attorney who requested the evaluation was reprimanded in the order and sought relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court before the order was vacated","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the mother describes learning of the fabricated citations in her child custody case as alarming","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Oklahoman's report (USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect) as republished by Minnesota Lawyer; read in full from the Wayback capture of 10 September 2026 because the live page returned 403. Its ChatGPT-admission passages relay the district attorney's letter; its account of the reprimand, the Supreme Court challenge and the vacatur draws on court filings and the attorney. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.aol.com/articles/oklahoma-judge-admitted-citing-fake-030000000.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"KFOR (Oklahoma City) report syndicated on AOL, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its account of the ChatGPT admission relays the same district attorney letter. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.news9.com/oklahoma-city-news/stephens-county-mother-speaks-out-after-judge-accused-of-using-chatgpt-in-custody-case","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"News 9 (Griffin Media) interview with the mother, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its description of the ChatGPT admission also relays the district attorney's letter; the mother's own account is independent of it. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/09/stephens-county-judge-faces-discipline-over-chatgpt-written-court-order/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Hoodline rewrite of the Reuters report, read in full on 2026-09-29. Reuters relays the same district attorney letter. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["The text of the order and whether the nonexistent citations were decisive for denying the evaluation and for the reprimand.","Whether any disciplinary proceeding follows from the Council on Judicial Complaints referral.","The current state of the custody case after the vacatur and the judge's departure from it.","The exact day in November 2025 on which the order was issued."],"geography":{"basis":"The Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9 locate the order and proceedings in Stephens County, Oklahoma, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court. These establish the event and court countries as US. News 9 calls the interviewee a Stephens County mother but gives no explicit residence evidence for either counted person, so affected_person_countries is unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"This reported event connects specific ChatGPT-generated citations to an adverse order issued by a human judge. The Oklahoman and KFOR describe their use in the order, The Oklahoman reports the attorney's reprimand and successful challenge, and News 9 carries the mother's account. The AI admission is reported through one district attorney's letter, not independently verified model output. The family and attorney remain unnamed. No broader custody consequence or disciplinary finding is inferred.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9 relay a district attorney's letter saying the judge acknowledged using ChatGPT for research and incorporating at least two nonexistent citations it produced into his order. The cited authorities were presented in support of the human judge's denial of a requested evaluation and his reprimand of the attorney. This supports informed_decision_about for the affected mother and attorney. It does not establish that ChatGPT itself decided custody or communicated with either of them. The underlying letter and order were not inspected, and whether the citations determined the outcome is unknown.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Prosecutor: judge used ChatGPT citations in Oklahoma custody order later vacated","summary":"In November 2025 Stephens County Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler issued an order in a child paternity and custody case that denied one parent's request for a psychological evaluation of the other parent and reprimanded the requesting parent's attorney 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics'. The attorney challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, telling the justices that it relied on two cases that do not exist; the challenge was dismissed in March after Wheeler vacated the order, and he is no longer on the case. According to a 17 August 2026 letter from the Stephens County district attorney, Wheeler told the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and that at least two citations in it produced by ChatGPT do not exist. The mother in the case told News 9 that learning the order's citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because it concerned the custody of a child. The attorney general's office declined criminal prosecution; judicial discipline remains possible.","incidentDate":"2025-11-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-09","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used by the judge for legal research while preparing the order","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the district attorney's letter as reported by The Oklahoman and KFOR, a judge acknowledged that his custody-case order contained at least two nonexistent citations supplied by ChatGPT. The order denied a request for a psychological evaluation and reprimanded the requesting attorney. The attorney challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court before it was vacated. The mother described the discovery as alarming in a News 9 interview. The order and letter have not been inspected directly.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people affected through the judge's use of ChatGPT: the mother, whose request for a psychological evaluation was denied by the order and who describes the discovery as alarming (News 9), and the attorney who requested the evaluation and was reprimanded in the order and challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court (The Oklahoman). The child and the other parent are not counted because no harm to them is reported. The judge, the AI user, is not counted: he faces a possible disciplinary process but no sanction has been reported and the complaint bundled other allegations.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-OK","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","primarySourceLabel":"The Oklahoman via Minnesota Lawyer, 9 September 2026: judge used ChatGPT citations in custody order","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:18.787549+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:44.069668+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["justice","family-court","judge","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","institutional-use","oklahoma"]},{"id":"2026-surat-customs-penalty-ai-hallucinated-citations-supreme-court","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The present appeal arose out of an Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposing a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on the appellant under Section 114, Customs Act, 1962, for misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The challenge to the said penalty before the Gujarat High Court failed, as the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20 January 2026.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The penalty was imposed for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to attract a lower tariff.'; 'the High Court dismissed his challenge on January 20, 2026, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds, and the Gujarat High Court dismissed his challenge on 20 January 2026.","causal_attribution":"Facts of the proceedings as recited in the Supreme Court judgment, reported by legal outlets; the judgment itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Upon verifying such judgments and articles, it does appear that the second respondent has relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations. A further investigation has also revealed that some of the case laws relied upon by the second respondent, which do exist, do not lay down the ratio deduced therefrom and it appears to be a hallucination of AI,' the Court observed.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Upon verification, the court found that the second respondent had \"relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations.\" It further found that some case laws which did exist did not lay down the legal propositions attributed to them, and that this \"appears to be a hallucination of AI\".'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Legal reports quote the Supreme Court finding that the penalty order relied on nonexistent case law or fake citations, and on existing cases that did not support the attributed legal propositions, which it described as apparent AI hallucination.","causal_attribution":"Finding of the Supreme Court after its own verification of the cited material, as quoted by the reports. The court attributes the defects to AI in qualified terms ('appears to be'); the tool is not named."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The use of AI in this case, resulting in reliance placed by the second respondent on material which is dubious, proves fatal to the sustainability of the order imposing penalty on the appellant. Such circumstances compel us to interfere and remand the case,' the Court said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The proceedings were revived for fresh adjudication by an officer of the same rank other than the officer who had passed the original order.'; 'The Court left it to the wisdom of the appointing authority to initiate such action against the author of the Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 as may be warranted in the circumstances, in accordance with law.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, set aside a customs penalty of over ₹425 crore'; 'A bench of Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Sheel Nagu did not examine the merits of the customs case at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Верховний суд Індії 2 вересня 2026 року розглянув справу щодо використання штучного інтелекту працівником митниці, який послався на неіснуючі судові справи та фальшиві цитати, накладаючи штраф у розмірі близько $45 млн' (the Supreme Court of India on 2 September 2026 considered a case of a customs officer's use of AI, who cited non-existent cases and fake quotations while imposing a fine of about $45 million)","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Legal reports say that on 2 September 2026 the Supreme Court treated reliance on dubious AI material as fatal to the penalty order, set aside that order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, and revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank. The reports also say the court left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority.","causal_attribution":"Holding of the Supreme Court as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"a ₹425 crore customs penalty order resting on non-existent and misattributed case law that the Supreme Court found appeared to be AI hallucination stood against the trader for about eleven months and was upheld by the Gujarat High Court","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the trader had to take the case to the Supreme Court, which voided the order but revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full body (including JSON-LD article body) read by curl on 2026-09-29. Reports and quotes the Supreme Court judgment of 2 September 2026. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/09/03/supreme-court-sets-aside-%E2%82%B9425-crore-customs-penalty-over-ai-generated-fake-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"SCC Times case note, read by curl on 2026-09-29; summarises the same judgment (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1741). Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://upstox.com/news/personal-finance/tax/how-a-diamond-trader-got-relief-from-a-425-crore-penalty-after-customs-used-ai-generated-citations/article-199828/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Upstox (4 September 2026), read by curl on 2026-09-29; based on the same judgment. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://sud.ua/uk/news/abroad/371427-mytnyk-poviryv-shi-i-vypysav-shtraf-na-45-mln-verkhovnyi-sud-use-skasuvav","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"uk","translation_note":"Ukrainian-language report (6 September 2026) read through the r.jina.ai relay on 2026-09-29 (direct fetch 403); translated by the reviewer. Cited only for context; it converts the penalty to about US$45 million. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review. The Ukrainian article body was read with AI language assistance; it explicitly credits Supreme Court Observer and supplies context only.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","public_services","finance"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the customs officer used and how it was used in drafting the order.","Whether the trader paid any part of the penalty or incurred other financial consequences while the order stood, and the trader's litigation costs.","The outcome of the revived adjudication and whether any action was taken against the officer.","The trader's country and place of residence."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, challenged in the Gujarat High Court and decided by the Supreme Court of India. The trader's country of residence is not stated in the read reports, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Legal reporting describes a concrete penalty imposed on a trader through an administrative decision that used apparently AI-generated false authorities. The reported Supreme Court ruling connects reliance on that material to the decision to set the order aside. The trader is unnamed and the underlying customs allegation remains undecided. All cited accounts derive from the same judgment, whose text has not been inspected. No payment of the penalty or quantified financial loss is asserted.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Bar & Bench, SCC Times and Upstox report that the Supreme Court verified the authorities used in the officer's penalty order, found nonexistent cases, false citations and misattributed propositions, and described them as apparent AI hallucination. The reports connect this material to the officer's order imposing the penalty, which the court set aside on that basis. This supports informed_decision_about: the human officer used the material in an adverse decision about the trader. The tool and how it was used remain unknown, and the judgment itself has not been inspected.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"India's Supreme Court overturns customs penalty citing apparent AI hallucinations","summary":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Surat imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 (about ₹425 crore) on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The trader's challenge was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on 20 January 2026. Before the Supreme Court the trader argued that judgments and articles cited in the penalty order had been generated using artificial intelligence. On 2 September 2026 a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, after checking the material, found that the order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on real cases that did not lay down the propositions attributed to them, which the court said 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'. Holding that the use of AI and reliance on this dubious material was fatal to the order, the court set aside both the penalty order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, sent the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority. The AI tool used is not named in the read reports.","incidentDate":"2025-10-08","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-02","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-02","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI tool reportedly used in authorities cited in a customs penalty order; legal reports quote the Supreme Court describing nonexistent and misattributed case law as apparent AI hallucination","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A diamond trader was subjected for about eleven months to a ₹425 crore customs penalty order, and lost a High Court challenge to it, before India's Supreme Court voided the order because it relied on non-existent and misattributed case law that the court found appeared to be AI hallucination (Supreme Court judgment as reported by Bar & Bench, SCC Online and Upstox). The underlying proceedings were revived.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One trader, the appellant, on whom the penalty was imposed. The trader did not use the AI; the customs officer did. No other person is reported harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","primarySourceLabel":"Bar & Bench, 2 September 2026: Supreme Court scraps ₹425 crore penalty over fake citations, AI hallucinations in customs order","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:08:50.773251+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:47.973979+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["india","surat","customs","supreme-court","hallucinated-citations","institutional-use","administrative-decision","penalty"]},{"id":"2025-lipps-facial-recognition-wrongful-jailing","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Surveillance 'showed woman using a fake US army military ID to withdraw tens of thousands'; the 8-count charge list.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Zibolski 'acknowledged that investigators made incorrect assumptions based on the West Fargo Police Department's Clearview AI facial recognition technology'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"Warrant signed 2025-07-01 with nationwide extradition; the chief: the case 'was not solely based on just that one piece'; 'an AI function through the North Dakota State Intelligence Center'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The case began with bank-fraud surveillance of a woman using a fake U.S. Army military ID to withdraw tens of thousands of dollars; an AI facial-recognition identification tied Lipps to that surveillance — recorded by Snopes as the West Fargo Police Department's Clearview AI technology, and by Fargo's chief as 'an AI function through the North Dakota State Intelligence Center... not anything that we own'; a nationwide-extradition warrant was signed on 1 July 2025.","causal_attribution":"The vendor attribution differs between the chains (Clearview per Snopes' reading of the WFPD investigation; the state intelligence center's function per the chief) and is recorded with the discrepancy."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'US marshals arrested Lipps at her Tennessee home while she was babysitting four children... taken away at gunpoint'; 'nearly four months without bail'; bank records 'more than 1,200 miles away in Tennessee'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"PD timeline: TN waiver 10-20; booked Cass Co. 10-30; bank records presented 12-12; dismissal agreed 12-23; released 12-24.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Dismissal 'without prejudice... Angela remains a person they are investigating'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"U.S. Marshals arrested her at gunpoint at her Tennessee home on 14 July 2025 while she babysat four children; she fought extradition for about three months in a Tennessee jail, was booked into Cass County on 30 October, and was released on 24 December after her bank records showed her more than 1,200 miles away in Tennessee; charges were dismissed without prejudice.","causal_attribution":"The custody timeline is consistent across the Guardian, KVLY's police timeline and Snopes; the dismissal's without-prejudice character comes from KVLY's attorney piece."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"KVLY-obtained email 'showed six Fargo detectives were notified of Lipps' arrest in July — nearly five months before Fargo Police say they knew she was in custody'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"An email obtained by KVLY shows six Fargo detectives were notified of her arrest in July 2025 — nearly five months before the department says it learned she was in custody (5 December).","causal_attribution":"KVLY's own document reporting; the department's stated knowledge date comes from its police timeline."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"The 'incorrect assumptions' concession (Snopes' reading of the 24 March presser).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"The chief's 'not solely based on just that one piece' and the state-center tool description.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Stefonowicz's April statement on an apology.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Fargo Police Chief Dave Zibolski acknowledged 'incorrect assumptions' linked to the AI identification while insisting the case 'was not solely based on just that one piece'; incoming Chief Stefonowicz said in April that if Ms. Lipps deserves an apology, 'I will absolutely be the first person to reach out'.","causal_attribution":"The concession's exact wording beyond Snopes' paraphrase is unverified; both chiefs' positions are recorded as stated."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'lost her home, her car and her dog.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Rice: 'pursuing potential civil rights claims, though no lawsuit has been filed'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"She lost her home, her car and her dog; her attorney Eric Rice said he was pursuing potential civil-rights claims, with no lawsuit filed as of 31 March 2026.","causal_attribution":"The losses are from the Guardian's account of her situation; the claim status is the attorney's statement as of 31 March 2026."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Angela Lipps, of Elizabethton, Tennessee, filed the federal lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in North Dakota against the City of Fargo and Fargo Police Department Detective Lucas Heck'; 'The complaint says Heck failed to disclose that the facial recognition result was actually based on a photo from the suspect's fake ID, not the surveillance footage'; 'The lawsuit brings five claims... Lipps is seeking $10 million in damages'; 'These are allegations contained in a civil complaint. No response has been filed as of this writing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"On 15 September 2026 Lipps filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit in the District of North Dakota against the City of Fargo and Detective Lucas Heck seeking $10 million, alleging that he relied on a flawed facial-recognition match based on the suspect's fake-ID photo, ignored exculpatory evidence and failed to disclose that such results are only investigative leads; the suit brings five claims and says the department had no facial-recognition policy or training at the time.","causal_attribution":"The filing and its contents are reported by the same station chain (KVLY) that broke the case; the complaint itself was not inspected, so the claim is recorded as reported rather than documented. The InForum report of the same filing answered HTTP 403."}],"effects":[{"label":"five months wrongfully jailed on an AI facial-recognition identification, with lasting losses","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/12/tennessee-grandmother-ai-fraud","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (12 Mar 2026, Marina Dunbar).","independence_group":"guardian"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.valleynewslive.com/2026/03/17/chief-zibolski-ai-was-lead-not-only-evidence-wrongful-jail-allegation/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (17 Mar 2026, Alix Larsen).","independence_group":"kvly"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.valleynewslive.com/2026/04/01/attorney-discusses-potential-lawsuit-after-tennessee-grandmother-jailed-by-facial-recognition-error/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (31 Mar 2026, Ethan Kramer).","independence_group":"kvly"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ai-tennessee-woman-jail/","kind":"fact_check","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (19 Jul 2026, updated 22 Jul; rating True). Aggregates the InForum/WDAY originals (blocked, 403); its Clearview attribution reflects that chain.","independence_group":"snopes"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.valleynewslive.com/2026/09/15/tennessee-woman-sues-fargo-ex-detective-over-wrongful-arrest-tied-facial-recognition-error/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-16 (datePublished 2026-09-15T17:39Z; Valley News Live, which first reported the case in March 2026).","independence_group":"kvly"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The InForum original investigation (the first reporting chain) is blocked (403) and was not read; Snopes' and the Guardian's accounts of it are used instead.","The exact wording of the 'incorrect assumptions' concession beyond Snopes' paraphrase is unverified.","The vendor question — Clearview AI (per Snopes) versus the North Dakota State Intelligence Center's AI function (per the chief) — is unresolved.","The woman in the bank-fraud surveillance (the actual suspect) is not reported as identified; the dismissal without prejudice leaves the investigation open.","Her arrest's bail conditions and the custody conditions are not detailed in the inspected sources.","The federal complaint (filed 15 September 2026) was not inspected and its case number is not given in the inspected report; the InForum account of the filing was blocked (403)."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: arrest at her Tennessee home; jailing in Tennessee and Cass County, North Dakota; the underlying bank fraud in the Fargo/West Fargo area. Affected person: Lipps, Tennessee. Court: the Cass County charges (dismissed), North Dakota.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional automated-decision case (made_decision_about / made_claim_about): an AI facial-recognition identification set five months of wrongful custody in motion, documented by the Guardian, an independent local chain with its own document reporting (KVLY), and a fact-check carrying the blocked original chain. She is named in national coverage; the police chiefs' accounts are preserved as contrary context. Updated 16 September 2026 with the $10 million federal suit filed on 15 September, recorded from the Valley News Live report as a reported claim.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Snopes records the misidentification as based on the West Fargo PD's Clearview AI technology; Fargo's police chief separately describes 'an AI function through the North Dakota State Intelligence Center' and concedes 'incorrect assumptions' while insisting the case was not solely based on that one piece. The vendor attribution (Clearview vs the state center's function) is recorded with the discrepancy.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Tennessee grandmother Angela Lipps jailed five months on an AI facial-recognition misidentification; charges dismissed after bank records placed her 1,200 miles away","summary":"On 14 July 2025, U.S. Marshals arrested Angela Lipps, a 50-year-old Tennessee grandmother, at gunpoint at her home while she was babysitting four children, on a nationwide-extradition North Dakota warrant: West Fargo police's AI facial-recognition technology had tied her to bank-fraud surveillance of a woman using a fake U.S. Army military ID to withdraw tens of thousands of dollars. She fought extradition for about three months in a Tennessee jail, was booked into Cass County, North Dakota on 30 October 2025 on four counts of unauthorized use of personal identifying information and four counts of theft, and was released on 24 December after her bank records showed her more than 1,200 miles away in Tennessee; charges were dismissed without prejudice. Fargo's police chief acknowledged 'incorrect assumptions' linked to the AI identification; an email obtained by KVLY shows six Fargo detectives were notified of her arrest in July, nearly five months before the department says it knew she was in custody. She lost her home, her car and her dog; her attorneys are pursuing potential civil-rights claims, with no lawsuit filed as of 31 March 2026. On 15 September 2026 she filed a $10 million federal civil-rights suit in the District of North Dakota against the City of Fargo and the detective, alleging he relied on a flawed facial-recognition match and ignored exculpatory evidence.","incidentDate":"2025-07-14","incidentEndDate":"2025-12-24","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-03-12","aiSystem":"Clearview AI facial recognition (per Snopes' account of the West Fargo PD investigation); described by Fargo's chief as 'an AI function through the North Dakota State Intelligence Center'","aiProduct":"Clearview AI facial recognition (reported)","aiCompany":"Clearview AI (vendor per Snopes); North Dakota State Intelligence Center (per Fargo police chief)","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","loss_of_autonomy","reputational_harm","property_loss","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Five months jailed on an AI-driven misidentification — arrested at gunpoint while babysitting, held states away from home — ending only when her bank records proved she was 1,200 miles away; she lost her home, car and dog, and the dismissal without prejudice leaves her 'a person they are investigating'.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: Lipps, the misidentified defendant (three chains; her attorneys' account). The children she was babysitting are recorded in the narrative but not counted as harmed persons (no harm to them is reported).","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/12/tennessee-grandmother-ai-fraud","primarySourceLabel":"The Guardian (12 Mar 2026, Marina Dunbar) — the arrest, the custody ordeal, the losses","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T10:28:13.154947+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:08.693119+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["civil-rights","clearview","facial-recognition","justice","lawsuit","made-claim-about","made-decision-about","north-dakota","tennessee","wrongful-arrest"]},{"id":"2025-washington-il-snapchat-flag-student-teacher-arrest","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The social media site flagged the message and warned the FBI, which then notified the Sheriff's Office'; 'the office had been informed on Jan. 29, 2025, at 1:06 p.m. that the FBI had received a threat via Snapchat involving someone at John A. Hensey School in Washington.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"District email: 'The use of that obviously inappropriate language on the social media site triggered a report to law enforcement who subsequently interviewed the student teacher.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Snapchat's systems flagged the woman's private group-chat message and warned the FBI, which notified the Tazewell County Sheriff's Office on 29 January 2025 at 1:06 p.m.","causal_attribution":"One outlet group (Peoria Journal Star) carrying two distinct records (sheriff's reports via FOIA; the district's email). The flagging technology is unspecified; no second independent outlet describes the mechanism, so the claim stays reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'In a chat with her boyfriend and her two roommates, she advised whether she should \"shoot the child or just the whole school?\"' (sheriff's reports).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Volpe sent the message to her friends, asking them whether she should \"shoot\" the student.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The flagged message asked whether she should 'shoot the child or just the whole school' (sheriff's reports' rendering); the district's email and 25News Now report her asking friends whether she should 'shoot' the student.","causal_attribution":"Wordings differ slightly between the sheriff's reports and the district/25News accounts; both versions are attributed. She confirmed sending the message and said it was a joke."},{"id":"c3","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Body-cam account: interview in an empty classroom, Miranda rights, the flagged message shown, consent forms, classroom search finding nothing; 'she would be arrested in Tazewell County'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'deputies arrested [her] at John L. Hensey Elementary School around 1 p.m. Wednesday. She was booked into the Tazewell County Jail for disorderly conduct.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Deputies interviewed her at the school, read her Miranda rights, searched her phone and belongings with consent and found no weapons; they arrested her on a disorderly conduct charge and she was booked into the Tazewell County Jail.","causal_attribution":"The arrest and booking are established by two independent local outlets; the interview detail comes from the FOIA body-cam footage and police reports."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'Deputies interviewed her and came to the conclusion that she made the comment out of \"exasperation,\" had no intentions to harm anyone, and was not a threat to the school.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"District email: 'Law enforcement officers quickly determined that the student teacher made the statement out of exasperation... but did not have any actual intent to shoot anyone or otherwise cause harm.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Sheriff's Office and the district concluded the remark was made out of exasperation, with no intent to harm and no threat to the school.","causal_attribution":"Both the district's letter and the deputies' own conclusion are attributed; no source reports any contrary finding."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'it said the student teacher would not be returning to District 50 to complete her assignment.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Superintendent Chad Allaman's letter: 'Volpe is not returning to the school to finish her educational assignment.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The district told parents she would not return to District 50 to complete her educational assignment.","causal_attribution":"The district's decision is attributed to its own letter carried by two outlets."}],"effects":[{"label":"arrest and loss of a teaching placement after an automated flag escalated a private joke to law enforcement","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.pjstar.com/story/news/local/2026/04/10/how-an-fbi-tip-led-to-arrest-of-a-student-teacher-in-washington-illinois/88217675007/","kind":"news_report_foia_records","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2026-04-10T11:15Z; 34 paragraphs). Based on sheriff's deputy and detective reports plus body-camera footage obtained by FOIA from the Tazewell County Sheriff's Office.","independence_group":"pjstar"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.pjstar.com/story/news/education/2025/01/30/washington-il-student-teacher-makes-inappropriate-shooting-comment-district-says/78061557007/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2025-01-30T23:13Z). Based on the District 50 email to parents; withheld the teacher's name.","independence_group":"pjstar"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.25newsnow.com/2025/01/31/exasperated-student-teacher-wont-return-after-allegedly-commenting-about-shooting-student/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2025-01-31T17:07Z). Attributes to deputies and the school district; names the teacher from jail records — the name is deliberately not carried into this public record.","independence_group":"week-25news"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://thoughtcatalog.com/jeremy-london/2026/08/snapchat-scans-your-private-group-chats-and-a-22-year-old-teacher-found-out-when-deputies-showed-up-to-arrest-her-over-a-joke/","kind":"content_farm_rehash","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2026-08-02). Two substantive paragraphs, 'reportedly' framing, no place, date or document; derivative of the 2025 local reporting with embellishments. Recorded for provenance; never cited as support.","independence_group":"thought-catalog"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education","work","justice","privacy"],"unknowns":["The disposition of the disorderly conduct charge (dismissal, plea, supervision) is not reported in the inspected sources.","The flagging technology Snapchat used (automated classifiers, hash matching or otherwise) is not specified in the inspected records.","Whether she continued teacher training elsewhere is not reported.","The school's name appears as 'John A. Hensey School' (Peoria Journal Star) and 'John L. Hensey Elementary School' (25News Now); the discrepancy is unresolved.","The exact interval between sending the message and the FBI referral is not stated; content-farm claims of 'within an hour' are unverified."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: John A. Hensey School, Washington, Illinois (25News Now renders the school name 'John L. Hensey Elementary School'), and the Tazewell County Jail. Affected person: the student teacher at that school. No court proceeding is reported, so court_countries is [].","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional-use automated-moderation case: a consequential institutional response (arrest, placement loss) to an automated flag of a private message, documented by FOIA-based local reporting. She is an adult; although local TV named her from jail records, she is not named here because deputies cleared her of intent and republication adds reputational risk without evidential value.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Police reports obtained under FOIA state 'the social media site flagged the message and warned the FBI', and the district's email says the language use 'triggered a report to law enforcement'; no human reporter was involved. The flagging technology (automated classifiers or otherwise) is not specified in the inspected records.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Washington, Illinois: Snapchat flagged a student teacher's private joke to the FBI; she was arrested at her school and lost her placement","summary":"On 29 January 2025, a 22-year-old student teacher at a District 50 elementary school in Washington, Illinois, vented in a private Snapchat group chat with her boyfriend and two roommates after a third-grade student turned off her computer mid lesson-plan, asking whether she should 'shoot the child or just the whole school' (per sheriff's reports). Snapchat's systems flagged the message and warned the FBI, which notified the Tazewell County Sheriff's Office at 1:06 p.m. Deputies interviewed her at the school, confirmed she sent it as a joke, searched her phone and belongings with her consent and found no weapons, and arrested her on a disorderly conduct charge; they concluded she had spoken out of 'exasperation' with no intent to harm and no threat to the school. The district told parents she would not return to complete her educational assignment.","incidentDate":"2025-01-29","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-01-30","aiSystem":"Snapchat automated content-flagging system","aiProduct":"Snapchat content-flagging system","aiCompany":"Snap Inc.","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A private joke flagged by an automated system led to an armed-response interview at her workplace, arrest and jail booking on a disorderly conduct charge, and the loss of her student-teaching placement, although deputies and the district concluded she never intended harm.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: the student teacher, subject to the platform's institutional automated flagging (counted under institutional use, not as an AI user). No student or staff member was aware of the conversation per the district; the referenced third-grade student is not counted as harmed (deputies found no threat and no one else saw the private message).","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.pjstar.com/story/news/local/2026/04/10/how-an-fbi-tip-led-to-arrest-of-a-student-teacher-in-washington-illinois/88217675007/","primarySourceLabel":"Peoria Journal Star (10 Apr 2026) — FOIA-based account: sheriff's reports and body-camera footage","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T05:24:48.263548+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:21.046347+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["privacy","automated-moderation","snapchat","education","arrest","institutional-use","illinois"]}]}