{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-11T08:50:01.281Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"line","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":8,"coverage":{"cases":8,"countries":3,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":3,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":8,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-nova-scotia-google-ai-overview-musician-sex-offender-summary-concert-cancelled","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"They had read online, Mr. MacIsaac was told, that he had convictions related to internet luring and sexual assault.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"That information is not true","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the summary falsely asserted he had been convicted of a series of offences including sexual assault","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"returned a result that said he had been “convicted of sexual assault.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"MacIsaac says a Google AI-generated search summary described him as having convictions for sexual offences including internet luring and sexual assault, and that this was untrue.","causal_attribution":"MacIsaac's account relayed by two outlets. The Globe adds that the only public record of a run-in with the law it found is a cannabis discharge. The summary was not inspected. The Globe reporter saw a Google result stating 'convicted of sexual assault' on a query that included the other man's town; that result was seen after the first amendments and may differ from what the First Nation read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"its leadership had changed their mind","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"this situation was the result of mistaken identity caused by an AI error","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"had cancelled one of his concerts planned for Dec. 19","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"the cancellation was based on incorrect information","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"We deeply regret the harm this error caused to your reputation, your livelihood, and your sense of personal safety","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Sipekne'katik First Nation cancelled MacIsaac's concert planned for 19 December 2025 after learning of the summary, then apologised in writing and said the cancellation was based on incorrect information.","causal_attribution":"The apology letter (seen by the Globe) and an online post (cited by Global News) are the First Nation's own statements. The First Nation did not respond to the Globe's requests for comment."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"blending MacIsaac’s biography with that of another man","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the inaccurate claims were taken from online articles regarding a man in Atlantic Canada with the same last name","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The false information was the result of the AI summary blending MacIsaac's biography with that of another man in Atlantic Canada with the same last name.","causal_attribution":"The Globe states the blending in its own voice. Global News attributes the origin to MacIsaac."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The fiddler says the ordeal left him worried for his safety","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"He’s also concerned about work he may have lost without realizing it","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I feared for my own safety going on stage because of what I was labelled as.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"MacIsaac says the episode left him worried for his safety and concerned that other venues may have declined to book him without telling him.","causal_attribution":"MacIsaac's own account. Lost work beyond the one concert is his speculation."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Google has amended search results for the musician","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"we use those examples to improve our systems, and may take action under our policies","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Google amended the search results for MacIsaac. A Google spokesperson said AI Overviews change frequently and that Google uses examples of misinterpreted content to improve its systems.","causal_attribution":"Globe reporting and a Google statement. The exact edits were not inspected."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In a statement of claim filed in February with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"None of the claims in the document has been tested in court.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"claiming the online giant defamed him by falsely identifying him as a sex offender in an AI-generated summary","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Google is also liable for injuries and losses arising from the AI overview's defective design","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"MacIsaac is seeking $1.5 million in damages from Google LLC.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In February 2026 MacIsaac filed a statement of claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice alleging defamation and defective design and seeking damages of 1.5 million from Google LLC (US dollars in the Globe and Mail copy of the Canadian Press story, no currency stated in the CBC copy). Its claims have not been tested in court.","causal_attribution":"News paraphrase of the statement of claim (Canadian Press, relayed by CBC, the Globe and Billboard Canada). The claim itself was not inspected. The Globe copy of the wire story gives US dollars and the CBC copy gives no currency."}],"effects":[{"label":"Concert cancelled and reputational harm after a false AI-generated summary","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Reported fear for personal safety and possible unnoticed lost work","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.theglobeandmail.com/culture/article-ashley-macisaac-show-cancelled-google-ai-misinformation-music-fiddler/","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"globe-and-mail-dec-2025"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://globalnews.ca/news/11589560/ashley-macissac-ai-content-accusation/amp","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"canadian-press-2025-12"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cape-breton-fiddler-ashley-macisaac-lawsuit-against-google-9.7187490","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"canadian-press-2026-05-lawsuit"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.theglobeandmail.com/culture/music/article-ashley-macisaac-lawsuit-google-ai-error-sex-offender/","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"canadian-press-2026-05-lawsuit"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://ca.billboard.com/business/legal/ashley-macisaac-google-lawsuit","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"canadian-press-2026-05-lawsuit"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use","others_use"],"contexts":["work","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The AI Overview text the First Nation read was not preserved in the inspected sources (the Globe reporter saw a later result with a similar statement), and its content changed over time.","Exact date of the cancellation (the concert was planned for 19 December 2025).","Whether any other booking was lost (MacIsaac speculates, including about a concert in Mexico earlier in 2025).","Currency of the claimed damages (US dollars in one copy of the wire story, unstated in another).","The statement of claim was not read. Google's defence and the lawsuit outcome are unknown."],"geography":{"basis":"The concert was planned with the Sipekne'katik First Nation, described as north of Halifax (Nova Scotia is named by Billboard Canada). The statement of claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The country of residence of the affected person is not stated, so it is left unknown.","court_countries":["CA"],"event_countries":["CA"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Named public figure who is the subject. Two December 2025 outlets and May 2026 lawsuit coverage report a concrete cancelled concert and reputational harm traced to a Google AI-generated summary. The First Nation's written apology and Google's response are reported. Lawsuit claims remain allegations.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Globe and Mail states the false description was the result of Google's AI-generated search summary blending MacIsaac's biography with that of another man. Google's spokesperson statement refers to AI Overviews generally and does not address this summary. The summary itself was not inspected and its content changed over time.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Google AI Overview reportedly described fiddler Ashley MacIsaac as a convicted sex offender, and a concert was cancelled","summary":"In December 2025 Cape Breton fiddler Ashley MacIsaac said a First Nation north of Halifax cancelled his concert planned for 19 December after reading a Google AI-generated search summary that said he had convictions for sexual offences. He says the statements were false and came from online articles about another man in Atlantic Canada with the same last name. The First Nation apologised in writing and Google amended the search results. MacIsaac says he feared for his safety and worries about other lost work. In a statement of claim filed in February 2026 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice he seeks damages of 1.5 million from Google (US dollars in the Globe and Mail copy of the Canadian Press story, no currency stated in the CBC copy). None of its claims has been tested in court, and the claim says Google did not admit responsibility.","incidentDate":"2025-12-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-12-23","aiSystem":"Google Search AI Overviews","aiProduct":"Google AI Overviews","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm","professional_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"MacIsaac reports a cancelled concert, damage to his reputation and livelihood, fear for his safety and possible unnoticed lost bookings after the AI summary said he had convictions for sexual offences (his account, plus the First Nation's apology letter).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the musician, is reported harmed. The other man with the same last name is reported as the source of the mixed-up information and no harm to him is reported. The First Nation is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theglobeandmail.com/culture/article-ashley-macisaac-show-cancelled-google-ai-misinformation-music-fiddler/","primarySourceLabel":"The Globe and Mail, 23 December 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:29:04.774728+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:12.421073+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-us-yale-law-scholar-suspended-after-ai-empowered-news-site-article","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Last week, though, she was abruptly barred from Yale’s campus in New Haven, Conn., and placed on administrative leave.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Yale officials cited the reason as allegations that she was tied to entities subject to U.S. sanctions.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"on administrative leave last week and barred her from campus.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Yale placed the scholar on administrative leave and barred the scholar from campus in early March 2025, after allegations that the scholar was tied to entities subject to US sanctions.","causal_attribution":"The New York Times is the origin. Inside Higher Ed relays it. Yale's own statement to The National is a separate party statement (claim c8). The leave letter and the exact date were not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The decision came three days after a news site, powered at least in part by artificial intelligence, published a story about","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The news site, Jewish Onliner, said that the scholar was connected to Samidoun","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"prompted by allegations on a lesser-known, largely AI-powered news site called Jewish Onliner","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Yale's decision came three days after a news site described as powered at least in part by artificial intelligence published a story on the scholar's connections to Samidoun. Inside Higher Ed and Middle East Eye identify the site as Jewish Onliner.","causal_attribution":"The New York Times states the sequence and does not name the site in the inspected extract. The article date and Yale's internal reasoning are not documented in the inspected sources."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"“The initial email from the general counsel had specifically linked to the Jewish Onliner article and said that was the trigger of the investigation, so there's no dispute about that,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"I received the email notifying us from Yale's general counsel that she had been put on administrative leave and on the grounds that we had failed to cooperate with their investigation, which was ridiculous,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The scholar's lawyer says Yale's general counsel wrote that the Jewish Onliner article was the trigger of the investigation, and that Yale later placed the scholar on leave on the ground that, in the lawyer's words, 'we' (the scholar and the lawyer) had failed to cooperate with its investigation.","causal_attribution":"Single account by the scholar's lawyer as relayed by Middle East Eye. The Yale email was not inspected."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Jewish Onliner describes itself as “your online hub for insights, investigations, data and exposes about issues impacting the Jewish community. Empowered by AI capabilities\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"While AI plays a significant role in enhancing and accelerating our work and content, we want to emphasise that it’s only a tool.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"each person handles every part of a project: conducting OSINT [open source intelligence] research, analyzing the findings, and writing the piece. AI tools also play a significant role in enhancing and accelerating the work","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"articles are ultimately done by the site's human fact-checking team.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"The organization told the Times that humans, not AI, make the final edits on stories.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The site describes itself as empowered by AI. A person affiliated with the site says AI tools play a significant role and that each team member does the research, analysis and writing. The site's email to The National and its statement to the Times, as relayed by Inside Higher Ed, say humans fact-check content and make the final edits.","causal_attribution":"These are the site operators' own statements (emails to The National and to JTA, and a statement to the New York Times). How AI was used in the article about the scholar is not documented, and the JTA statement describes human research and writing."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"“I am not a member of any organization that would constitute a violation of U.S. law.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"told the Times that she’s not part “of any organization that would constitute a violation of U.S. law.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The scholar told the New York Times of not being a member of any organization that would constitute a violation of US law.","causal_attribution":"The scholar's own statement as quoted by Gizmodo and as paraphrased by Inside Higher Ed, which attributes it to a Times interview. The Times interview text beyond the extract was not inspected."},{"id":"c6","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"said she is not a member of Samidoun","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"has yet to explicitly deny her membership in Samidoun.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The scholar's lawyer says the scholar is not a member of Samidoun, and the site says the scholar has yet to explicitly deny membership.","causal_attribution":"Both positions are party statements. The inspected sources do not verify membership either way, and the site's underlying evidence (appearances on panels at Samidoun-sponsored events per the New York Times) was not inspected."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"had been enduring online harassment ever since the Jewish Onliner published its article.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"and Yale were reportedly the subject of intense harassment after Jewish Onliner published the article","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The scholar was reportedly subjected to online harassment after the article was published.","causal_attribution":"Lawyer's account relayed by Middle East Eye and an unsourced 'reportedly' statement in Gizmodo. The harassment itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In response to allegations about potential unlawful conduct, the appropriate process is to place an employee on a temporary administrative leave while a review is conducted to understand the facts of the matter.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"short-term position as an associate research scholar with the LPE Project expires next month.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"A Yale Law School representative said placing an employee on temporary administrative leave while a review is conducted is the appropriate process after allegations of potential unlawful conduct, and that the scholar's short-term position was due to expire the month after the statement.","causal_attribution":"Yale Law School's own statement as quoted by The National. The statement date is not given, so the expiry month is not established, and the effect of the leave on the scholar's employment is not reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"Administrative leave and campus ban after an AI-empowered news site article linked the scholar to a sanctioned group","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/us/yale-suspends-scholar-terrorism.html","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-report"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2025/03/13/ai-empowered-site-accuses-yale-scholar-terrorism-connection","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-report"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://gizmodo.com/yale-suspends-palestine-activist-after-ai-article-linked-her-to-terrorism-2000575148","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-report"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/muslim-scholar-international-law-barred-yale-university-after-ai-powered-terrorism-accusation","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"scholar-lawyer-account"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.thenationalnews.com/future/technology/2025/03/26/ai-powered-jewish-onliner-helyeh-doutaghi/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"the-national-statements"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/all-news/article-848011","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"site-own-statements"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","education","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The New York Times article was read only as a preview extract (a Wayback capture of about 3,000 characters ending at the paywall); passages beyond it were not seen.","The date the Jewish Onliner article was published and the exact date of Yale's leave decision are not stated in the inspected sources, so the incident date is given at month precision.","Which statements in the article, if any, were generated or drafted by AI, and whether any AI error contributed, is unknown.","The Jewish Onliner article itself was not inspected.","The National quotes a Yale Law School statement that the scholar's short-term position expires 'next month'. The statement date is not given, and the outcome of the investigation and any effect on the scholar's employment are not reported.","A person affiliated with the site says each team member does the research, analysis and writing, so the extent of AI use in the article about the scholar is unknown.","Whether the scholar was later reinstated, or how Yale's investigation concluded, is not covered by the inspected sources."],"geography":{"basis":"The New York Times places the barred campus in New Haven, Conn. The scholar's residence or nationality, the site operators' location and any court are not used.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Six public news reports were read. The New York Times original is cited from a preview extract only. Claims are attributed and left at reported or disputed status because the leave letter, the article and Yale's statements were not inspected beyond press quotations. The scholar is not named in any public field.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The New York Times describes the site as 'powered at least in part by artificial intelligence', the site describes itself as empowered by AI capabilities, and a person affiliated with the site says AI tools play a significant role in its work and humans fact-check. A person affiliated with the site also says each team member does the research, analysis and writing, and the inspected sources do not show that AI produced the article about the scholar.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Yale Law School scholar placed on leave and barred from campus after article on an AI-empowered news site linked the scholar to a sanctioned group","summary":"In March 2025 Yale placed a Yale Law School scholar, who was deputy director of a Yale Law School project, on administrative leave and barred the scholar from campus. The New York Times reports the decision came three days after a news site described as powered at least in part by artificial intelligence published a story on the scholar's connections to Samidoun, a group on a US sanctions list. Inside Higher Ed and Middle East Eye identify the site as Jewish Onliner. The scholar's lawyer says Yale's general counsel named the article as the trigger of the investigation. The scholar told the Times of not being a member of any organization that would violate US law, and the lawyer says the scholar is not a member of Samidoun. A Yale Law School representative told The National that placing an employee on temporary administrative leave while a review is conducted is the appropriate process and that the scholar's short-term position was due to expire the following month. The site says humans fact-check and that AI tools play a significant role in its work. The inspected sources do not show that AI produced the article.","incidentDate":"2025-03-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-03-12","aiSystem":"Jewish Onliner (Substack news site describing itself as empowered by AI capabilities; models and tools not identified in the inspected sources)","aiProduct":"Jewish Onliner (suspected)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The New York Times reports the scholar was barred from Yale's campus and placed on administrative leave, and the scholar's lawyer told Middle East Eye the article was named as the trigger of Yale's investigation, that the scholar suffered online harassment and that Yale should restore the scholar's reputation.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One scholar reported placed on leave and barred from campus. Yale, the site's other subjects and the harassers are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/us/yale-suspends-scholar-terrorism.html","primarySourceLabel":"The New York Times (12 Mar 2025), preview extract","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:55.093356+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.811349+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-krafton-unknown-worlds-executives-terminated-after-chatgpt-takeover-strategy","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton breached the EPA by terminating the Key Employees without valid Cause and by improperly seizing operational control of Unknown Worlds.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Date Decided: March 16, 2026","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Krafton agreed the studio would remain independent and that its leadership would retain operational control and could only be fired for cause, according to the ruling","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 16 March 2026 the Delaware Court of Chancery entered judgment that Krafton breached the acquisition agreement by terminating the three Key Employees without valid Cause and by improperly seizing operational control of the studio.","causal_attribution":"Phase One judgment on the contract claims. The court reserves damages for a second phase and does not decide whether the earnout was wrongfully impaired."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"a “dismissal with cause” would not eliminate the earnout obligation","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"turned to ChatGPT for help.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Now, chatgpt starts to answer that it is difficult to cancel the earn-out.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"When the AI chatbot responded that the earnout would be “difficult to cancel,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that after the Head of Corporate Development at Krafton warned the CEO that a dismissal with cause would not eliminate the earnout obligation, the CEO turned to ChatGPT, and that the CEO told the Head of Corporate Development in a Slack message that ChatGPT answered the earnout would be difficult to cancel.","causal_attribution":"Findings of fact drawn from Slack messages and trial testimony. The chat itself was deleted."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"The AI chatbot prepared a “Response Strategy to a ‘No-Deal’ Scenario,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Lock down Steam/console publishing rights and access rights over code/build pipeline","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Preemptive Framing - Repeat that protecting quality and fan trust is the highest priority","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Systematic materials for legal defense - Prepare contract interpretation memorandums, log all communications","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Team retention - Operation of retention packages for key personnel and rapid backfill pipelines","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Over the next month, Krafton followed most of ChatGPT’s recommendations.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Over the next month, Krafton followed most of ChatGPT’s recommendations,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court found that ChatGPT prepared a \"Response Strategy to a No-Deal Scenario\" recommending, among other steps, preemptive public framing, locking down publishing rights and access to the build pipeline, legal defense materials and team retention, and that Krafton followed most of these recommendations over the next month.","causal_attribution":"The opinion lists the strategy items and the steps Krafton took. The listed strategy does not include dismissing the executives. The dismissal decision is Krafton's."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton locked down Steam publishing rights to ensure Unknown Worlds could not publish Subnautica 2.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This severed Unknown Worlds’ practical ability to launch Subnautica 2.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On June 12, Krafton posted a message on the Unknown Worlds and Subnautica websites.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the Unknown Worlds team were shocked, since they had “nothing to do with” the message","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On July 1, 2025, Krafton sent termination letters to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The letters identified a single ground for dismissal","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that Krafton locked Unknown Worlds out of its Steam publishing rights, which the court found severed the studio's practical ability to launch its game, posted a message on the studio websites without the studio's involvement, and on 1 July 2025 sent termination letters citing a single ground.","causal_attribution":"Court findings of fact. The opinion links the lockdown to ChatGPT's recommendation and does not state that ChatGPT recommended the July terminations."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton’s newly manufactured justifications for the terminations are pretextual.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"had secretly entered semi-retirement and that all three leaders had executed massive downloads of company data","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found Krafton's later justifications for the terminations (semi-retirement of two founders and data downloads) were pretextual.","causal_attribution":"Judicial finding after an expedited trial. Krafton's arguments are its litigation positions."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"is hereby reinstated as CEO of Unknown Worlds","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"authority over the early access launch of Subnautica 2","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the base earnout Testing Period is equitably extended by 258 days","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court reinstated the CEO of Unknown Worlds, enjoined Krafton from impeding the studio CEO's authority over the game's early access launch, and extended the base earnout Testing Period by 258 days.","causal_attribution":"Specific performance remedy. The court declined to return the two founders to their earlier roles."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"had deleted specific, relevant ChatGPT logs.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This particular chat was deleted.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The CEO admitted at trial to deleting relevant ChatGPT logs, including the particular chat in which the earnout question was put to the chatbot.","causal_attribution":"A limit on the record. It bears on what the chatbot said, not on the court's findings about the terminations."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"formed an internal task force, dubbed “Project X.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The task force’s mandate was to either negotiate a “deal” on the earnout or execute a “Take Over” of Unknown Worlds.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"formed an internal taskforce, dubbed Project X.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The task force’s mandate was to either negotiate a ‘deal’ on the earnout or execute a ‘takeover’ of Unknown Worlds,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The court found that, at ChatGPT's suggestion, the Krafton CEO formed an internal task force, Project X, whose mandate was either to negotiate a deal on the earnout or to execute a takeover of Unknown Worlds.","causal_attribution":"Finding of fact in the opinion, relayed by the Guardian and IGN. The task force's mandate is Krafton's; the opinion attributes only the suggestion to form it to ChatGPT."},{"id":"c9","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"began to explore options, including firing the Key Employees.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that the Krafton CEO had begun exploring options, including firing the Key Employees, before the 2 June 2025 warning and the ChatGPT consultation that followed it.","causal_attribution":"Contrary evidence on causation: the idea of dismissal preceded the chatbot consultation."},{"id":"c10","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"It also suggested a “key summary of responses” Krafton could deliver to the Key Employees:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Krafton’s seizure of Steam and other systems forced","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"to the negotiating table, and they began to discuss a solution.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"It might actually be easier to just do a takeover.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"responded: “Set a date.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that ChatGPT's strategy also suggested a key summary of responses Krafton could deliver to the Key Employees, that Krafton's seizure of Steam and other systems forced the studio's CEO to the negotiating table, and that when negotiations stalled Krafton's Head of Strategy wrote on 27 June 2025 that it might be easier to just do a takeover, to which the Krafton CEO replied to set a date.","causal_attribution":"Findings of fact from Slack messages and trial testimony. They connect the ChatGPT-recommended lockdown to the negotiations and the takeover decision; the takeover decision itself is the Krafton executives'."},{"id":"c11","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"have reached a mutual settlement and agreed to dismiss all pending legal proceedings,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Krafton said in a regulatory filing Wednesday that the company and the lead developers behind the globally popular Subnautica video game franchise decided to drop their court fight over controversial earn out bonuses.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"officially settled the dispute and decided to withdraw all pending lawsuits as of Tuesday, the filing read.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Krafton said in a statement to IGN that Krafton, Unknown Worlds and the three executives had reached a mutual settlement and agreed to dismiss all pending legal proceedings, and Yonhap, via The Korea Times, reported a Krafton regulatory filing on Wednesday 1 July 2026 saying the dispute was settled and all pending lawsuits withdrawn as of Tuesday 30 June 2026.","causal_attribution":"Both outlets relay Krafton's own announcement (a statement to IGN and a regulatory filing), one origin. The settlement terms beyond dismissal are not published by Krafton."},{"id":"c12","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"had stepped down, leaving the company to look for a new boss.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"The entire staff of Subnautica 2 developer Unknown Worlds will get their bonuses after parent company Krafton reached a settlement with studio leadership.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"IGN, citing Bloomberg, reported that the studio's CEO stepped down as part of the settlement and that the studio's entire staff would receive their bonuses.","causal_attribution":"Second-hand report (IGN relaying Bloomberg); Krafton's statement does not confirm these terms."},{"id":"c13","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Krafton said in a statement that it disagreed with the ruling and was evaluating its options and remained focused on delivering the best possible game for fans.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Krafton said in a statement after the ruling that it disagreed with the ruling and was evaluating its options.","causal_attribution":"Krafton's litigation position as reported by the Guardian."}],"effects":[{"label":"Three studio executives terminated without valid Cause and removed from operational control during a takeover campaign that followed a CEO's ChatGPT strategy","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=392880","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"delaware-chancery-opinion-2026-03"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/18/subnautica-2-publisher-krafton-ceo-reinstated-ai-chatgpt-failed-bid-avoid-paying-bonus","kind":"journalistic","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"delaware-chancery-opinion-2026-03"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.ign.com/articles/subnautica-2-developers-entire-staff-get-their-bonuses-after-krafton-agrees-to-settlement-but-ceo-steps-down","kind":"journalistic","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"krafton-settlement-announcement-2026-07"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/business/companies/20260701/krafton-unknown-worlds-settle-legal-dispute-over-bonuses","kind":"journalistic","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"krafton-settlement-announcement-2026-07"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["The date of the CEO's first ChatGPT use is not given beyond the sequence in the opinion (a legal warning on 2 June 2025 followed by the ChatGPT consultation). The incident date is the month.","The content of the deleted ChatGPT chat is unknown.","Whether ChatGPT recommended or was asked about terminating the executives is not stated in the opinion; the opinion records that the Krafton CEO had explored firing them before consulting it.","Phase Two (damages and earnout impairment) was never decided: the parties settled in July 2026, and the settlement terms beyond dismissal of all proceedings are known only from IGN's account of a Bloomberg report.","Whether Krafton appealed the March 2026 opinion before the settlement is not stated in the inspected sources.","Where the executives lived and worked is not stated in the inspected passages; the Korea Times describes the studio as a U.S. game studio and the opinion as a California corporation, which does not locate the lockout or the terminations.","The end of the harmful series is not a single date: termination letters were sent on 1 July 2025 effective 31 July, and the court counted the studio CEO's ouster as lasting until 16 March 2026."],"geography":{"basis":"The opinion is from the Delaware Court of Chancery (court country US). It describes Krafton as a South Korean company and the studio as a California corporation, and the Korea Times calls the studio a U.S. game studio; none of the inspected sources states where the executives were when locked out and terminated, so event and affected-person countries are left unknown rather than inferred from incorporation or headquarters.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"The full Delaware Court of Chancery opinion was read for the ChatGPT passages, the termination chronology, the holding and the remedy; the Guardian's report of the ruling and the IGN and Korea Times/Yonhap reports of the July 2026 settlement were read in full. Claims drawn from the opinion are court findings and are documented; Krafton's statements and the settlement terms are reported and attributed. The AI output (the chatbot's strategy and task-force suggestion), Krafton's use of it (the Steam lockdown as ChatGPT recommended) and the consequence for the three executives (loss of operational control and termination found to be without valid Cause) are cited separately. The affected executives are described by role.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-10"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Output: the court opinion finds that Krafton's CEO consulted ChatGPT after being warned that a dismissal with cause would not eliminate the earnout, that the chatbot answered the earnout would be difficult to cancel, that at ChatGPT's suggestion the CEO formed the Project X task force whose mandate was a deal or a takeover of the studio, and that ChatGPT prepared a \"Response Strategy to a No-Deal Scenario\" recommending, among other steps, locking down Steam and console publishing rights and build-pipeline access and a key summary of responses to deliver to the Key Employees. Use: the court finds that over the next month Krafton followed most of ChatGPT's recommendations and that, as ChatGPT recommended, it locked down the studio's Steam publishing rights. Consequence: the court finds the lockdown severed the studio's practical ability to launch its game and forced its CEO to the negotiating table, that the takeover and the 1 July 2025 terminations followed when negotiations stalled, and holds that Krafton breached the agreement by improperly seizing operational control from the Key Employees and terminating them without valid Cause. Limits: the strategy the opinion quotes does not list dismissing the executives, the CEO had explored firing them before consulting ChatGPT, and the first chat log was deleted, so the chatbot's first replies are known only through Slack messages.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Delaware court finds Krafton fired three Unknown Worlds executives without valid cause in a takeover that followed its CEO's ChatGPT strategy","summary":"A Delaware Court of Chancery opinion of 16 March 2026 finds that in June 2025 the CEO of Krafton, after being warned that a dismissal with cause would not eliminate a contingent earnout obligation, consulted ChatGPT. The chatbot answered that the earnout would be difficult to cancel, suggested an internal task force (Project X) whose mandate was to negotiate a deal or execute a takeover of the studio, and prepared a \"Response Strategy to a No-Deal Scenario\" that recommended locking down the studio's Steam and console publishing rights and build-pipeline access. The court found that Krafton followed most of these recommendations over the next month: it locked the studio out of its Steam publishing rights, which severed the studio's practical ability to launch its game and forced the studio's CEO to the negotiating table, posted a message on the studio's websites, and on 1 July 2025 sent termination letters to the studio's two founders and its CEO. The court held that Krafton breached the acquisition agreement by terminating the three executives without valid Cause and by improperly seizing operational control, reinstated the studio's CEO and extended the earnout period by 258 days. The opinion records that the Krafton CEO had begun exploring options including firing the executives before consulting ChatGPT, and does not find that ChatGPT recommended the terminations. Krafton said it disagreed with the ruling. On 1 July 2026 Krafton announced a mutual settlement with the studio and the three executives dismissing all pending proceedings; IGN, citing Bloomberg, reported that the studio's CEO stepped down as part of it.","incidentDate":"2025-06-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-16","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court found three studio executives were terminated without valid Cause and had operational control taken from them in a campaign that followed most of a ChatGPT-prepared strategy; one was reinstated by court order in March 2026 and the dispute was settled in July 2026.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"unclear","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The opinion finds three Key Employees (two founders and the CEO) were terminated without valid Cause. Former shareholders represented by the plaintiff, studio staff and players are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"assistant","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=392880","primarySourceLabel":"Delaware Court of Chancery opinion, Fortis Advisors v. Krafton, C.A. No. 2025-0805-LWW, 16 March 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:25.863533+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T03:20:34.158615+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025","informed-decision"]},{"id":"2025-new-york-union-square-facial-recognition-false-arrest-two-days-jail","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"After his mug shot was generated as a possible match to the offender in an indecent exposure case, he was arrested and spent two days in jail in April before the charges against him were dropped in July.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"was falsely arrested and jailed for two days despite not matching the physical description given by the victim of a sex crime.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Prosecutors dismissed the case last month after ... public defenders, the Legal Aid Society, were able to prove he was falsely identified.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"An indecent exposure suspect search produced a possible facial recognition match to the affected man, who was arrested in April 2025, jailed for two days and charged. Prosecutors dismissed the case in July 2025.","causal_attribution":"The reporting attributes the arrest to the facial recognition possible match followed by police decisions (a photo lineup and the arrest). The inspected sources do not establish what other evidence the police relied on."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"The man they were looking for, he was eight inches shorter than me and 70 pounds lighter.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Location data from his cell phone showed that ... was miles away from the crime, the New York Times first reported.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The man reports that the suspect was eight inches shorter and 70 pounds lighter than him, and reports say location data from his phone placed him miles from the crime.","causal_attribution":"Physical and location discrepancies are the man's account and a relayed New York Times report. The New York Times article was not readable and the phone data was not inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"for NYPD investigators to make the decision to place him in a photo lineup, which was then shown to the victim, who misidentified him.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A victim was shown a photo lineup that included the man and misidentified him.","causal_attribution":"Hell Gate summarises the New York Times account. Its chain traces to the same original reporting as the New York Times article that was not readable here."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"I was in the process of becoming a correctional officer at Rikers Island,\" he told Eyewitness News.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"But after his arrest, he says \"they kind of froze the hiring process.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The man says he was in the process of becoming a correctional officer and that after his arrest they \"kind of froze the hiring process.\"","causal_attribution":"Single first-person account relayed by one outlet. No employer statement was inspected and the current hiring status is unknown."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"even if there is a possible match, the NYPD cannot and will never make an arrest solely using facial recognition technology.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The NYPD stated that even with a possible facial recognition match it cannot and will never make an arrest solely using facial recognition technology.","causal_attribution":"Police statement relayed by ABC7. It bears on how the match was used and does not address this arrest specifically."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On Monday, the Legal Aid Society sent a letter to the City's Department of Investigation urging the agency to open a probe into the NYPD's use of facial recognition technology","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"who was wrongfully arrested  based on a false facial recognition match","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Legal Aid Society wrote to the city Department of Investigation asking it to investigate NYPD facial recognition use after this and other false arrests.","causal_attribution":"Advocacy response. Legal Aid statements are the organisation's allegations."}],"effects":[{"label":"Arrest and two days in jail after a facial recognition possible match, case later dismissed","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://abc7ny.com/post/man-falsely-jailed-nypds-facial-recognition-surveillance-tech-failed/17664671/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"abc7-interview"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://hellgatenyc.com/legal-aid-investigation-nypd-facial-recognition/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-original-account"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://legalaidnyc.org/news/demands-ban-nypd-facial-recognition-technology/","kind":"advocacy_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"legal-aid"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/nyregion/nypd-facial-recognition-dismissed-case.html","kind":"news","access":"unavailable","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-original-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The New York Times article could not be read, so details attributed to it are relayed second-hand.","The facial recognition product, the source of the comparison photo and the match score are unknown.","The Hell Gate article is behind a subscriber paywall after its opening paragraphs; only the visible text was inspected.","The date of the facial recognition search and match (between the 10 February offense and the April arrest) is not stated in the inspected sources; the incident date is the reported arrest month.","The exact arrest day, the court and the dismissal date are not stated in the inspected sources.","Whether the correctional officer hiring process resumed is unknown.","Which evidence besides the possible match supported the arrest and lineup is unknown."],"geography":{"basis":"ABC7 places the offense in Manhattan's Union Square and the arrest by the NYPD. The man's residence and the court are not stated in the inspected sources.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"ABC7 New York and a Legal Aid Society release were read in full. Hell Gate was read only as far as its subscriber paywall allows. The New York Times original was blocked (HTTP 403 and reader relays) and is cited unread. Claims are attributed and left at reported status. The affected person is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Hell Gate and ABC7 report the arrest followed a facial recognition possible match. The system, the search image and the match output were not produced, and the New York Times original was not readable.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"New York: man misidentified through facial recognition in an indecent exposure case arrested and jailed two days","summary":"Reporting from August 2025 says an NYPD facial recognition search of images from a February 2025 indecent exposure in Manhattan's Union Square produced a possible match to a man who did not fit the described suspect. The man was placed in a photo lineup, arrested in April 2025 and jailed for two days. Prosecutors dismissed the case in July 2025 after his public defenders showed he was misidentified. The man says the process of becoming a correctional officer 'kind of' froze after the arrest. The NYPD says it never arrests solely on a facial recognition match.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-08-26","aiSystem":"NYPD facial recognition system (product and vendor not identified in the inspected sources)","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"ABC7 and Hell Gate report the man was arrested and jailed for two days before prosecutors dismissed the case, and the man says a correctional officer hiring process 'kind of' froze after the arrest.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One man reported arrested and jailed. The offense victim and other people are not counted as harmed by the AI.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://abc7ny.com/post/man-falsely-jailed-nypds-facial-recognition-surveillance-tech-failed/17664671/","primarySourceLabel":"ABC7 New York (27 Aug 2025)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T12:42:09.552414+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:11.583854+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"]}]}