{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-13T07:55:01.726Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"litigant","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"core","evidence":"","year":"2026","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":2,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-austria-administrative-court-fines-litigant-for-unlabelled-ai-generated-submissions","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Aktenkonvolute und Stellungnahmen mit offensichtlich ausschließlicher Erstellung mit Hilfe von Textprogrammen (LLM) künstlicher Intelligenz und ohne entsprechende Kennzeichnung gemäß Art 50 Verordnung 2024/1689'; 'Die Schriftsätze sind offensichtlich mit KI-Assistenten kreiert und nicht als solche gekennzeichnet.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Der Beschwerdeführer hatte binnen weniger Monate hunderte Seiten an offensichtlich KI-generierten Schriftsätzen und Beilagen abgegeben'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court found that the appellant had filed, within less than four months, statements and attachments running to several hundred pages that were obviously created exclusively with large-language-model text programs and AI assistants and were not labelled under Article 50 of Regulation 2024/1689.","causal_attribution":"The court's own finding in the published decision; the AI use is the court's assessment of the documents."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'eine Mutwillenstrafe von EUR 200,-- (in Worten: zweihundert Euro) verhängt, weil er das Bundesverwaltungsgericht mutwillig in Anspruch nimmt'; 'Entscheidungsdatum'; '01.09.2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In a decision of 1 September 2026 the court imposed a EUR 200 penalty for wanton use of the court and declared an ordinary appeal inadmissible.","causal_attribution":"Established by the operative part of the published decision."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Das Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVwG) hat erstmals wegen wiederholter Eingaben mit KI-generierten Inhalten eine Mutwillensstrafe in Höhe von 200€ gegen eine Verfahrenspartei verhängt.'; 'brachten in keiner Form neue Tatsachen oder Beweise vor'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Erstmals verhängte das Gericht eine \"Mutwillensstrafe\" wegen KI-generierter Beschwerden.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The court described the penalty as the first it has imposed because of repeated submissions with AI-generated content, and said the submissions repeated the existing complaints without new facts or evidence.","causal_attribution":"The court's own statement about its practice; derStandard relays it."}],"effects":[{"label":"an appellant was fined EUR 200 after filing hundreds of pages of AI-generated, unlabelled submissions","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bvwg&Dokumentnummer=BVWGT_20260901_W298_2341849_1_00","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"de","translation_note":"Read in full in German by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. The published decision text (RIS) was read; the appellant's submissions were not available.","independence_group":"bvwg-w298-2341849"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.bvwg.gv.at/Aktuelles/Publikationen-des-BVwG/Ausgew-hlte-Entscheidungen-des-Bundesverwaltungsgerichts/Bundesverwaltungsgericht-verh-ngt-erstmals-Strafe-wegen-KI-Eingaben.html","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"de","translation_note":"Read in full in German by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. The court's own news item about the decision; same origin as the decision.","independence_group":"bvwg-w298-2341849"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.derstandard.de/story/3000000343509/mann-flutete-gericht-mit-ki-generierten-beschwerden-oesi-richter-verhaengte-strafe","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"de","translation_note":"Read in full in German by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. derStandard relays the court's news item; only the free lead paragraph was available to the agent.","independence_group":"bvwg-w298-2341849"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the appellant used and the appellant's explanation.","Whether the penalty has been paid or challenged by extraordinary means, and the outcome of the underlying data-protection appeal."],"geography":{"basis":"The penalty was imposed by Austria's Federal Administrative Court in an appeal against the Austrian data protection authority (RIS decision, BVwG news item). The appellant's location is not stated, so no event or affected-person country is recorded from the court's seat.","court_countries":["AT"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's published decision documents that it fined an appellant EUR 200 for wanton use of the court after finding hundreds of pages of submissions had been created with AI text programs and filed unlabelled. The appellant is anonymised in the decision and here.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-13"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The published decision records the court's finding that the appellant's statements and attachments were obviously created exclusively with large-language-model text programs and AI assistants and were not labelled as AI-generated, and it bases the EUR 200 penalty on the appellant's use of AI assistants to file long, largely repetitive submissions. The AI assistants generated the text that the appellant filed, and the court penalised the appellant for filing it. The finding is the court's assessment of the documents; no product is named and the appellant's account is not recorded.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Austria: Federal Administrative Court fines a litigant EUR 200 for hundreds of pages of submissions it found were AI-generated and unlabelled","summary":"In a pending appeal against a decision of Austria's data protection authority, the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) found that the appellant had filed hundreds of pages of statements and attachments within less than four months that were obviously created exclusively with large-language-model text programs and not labelled as AI-generated. In a decision of 1 September 2026 the court imposed a EUR 200 penalty for wanton use of the court, holding that the AI-assisted filings repeated the same complaints, brought no new facts or evidence and ignored the EU labelling duty for AI-generated content. The court announced it as the first such penalty for AI submissions. The appellant is anonymised and the appellant's response is not reported.","incidentDate":"2026-09-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-09","aiSystem":"Large-language-model text programs and AI assistants that the court found had been used to create the appellant's statements and attachments; no product is named","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the published decision, the court fined the appellant EUR 200 for wanton use of the court after finding that hundreds of pages of submissions had been created with AI text programs and filed unlabelled. The appellant's response is not reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the appellant who used AI assistants to produce the submissions and was fined.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"AT","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bvwg&Dokumentnummer=BVWGT_20260901_W298_2341849_1_00","primarySourceLabel":"RIS, BVwG decision W298 2341849-1, 1 September 2026: penalty for wanton use of the court","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:16.86813+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:16.86813+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["austria","administrative-court","litigant","ai-generated-filings","sanction","ai-act-labelling"]},{"id":"2026-nebraska-supreme-court-strikes-self-represented-appellant-brief-over-ai-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'his brief contains numerous citations'; 'to fictitious cases and misstatements of law, which are the'; 'result of his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence'; 'In light of these deficiencies, we strike'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the self-represented appellant's brief contained numerous citations to fictitious cases and misstatements of law resulting from his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence, and struck the brief.","causal_attribution":"Finding stated in the court's published opinion of 2 October 2026."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'litigants are held to the same standard as practicing attorneys'; 'relies upon nonexistent legal authority is'; 'an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions'; 'we will stop short of dismissing'; 'dismissal of the appeal in lieu of plain error review may follow'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that self-represented litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys and that submitting a brief relying on nonexistent legal authority is an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions, but stopped short of dismissing the appeal and reviewed for plain error, warning that dismissal may follow in future cases.","causal_attribution":"Holding stated in the court's published opinion."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'sanctioned him to serve a term of 90 days’ incarceration'; 'Finding no plain error, we affirm'; 'time to a period of 5 weeks and once again ordered that he pay'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Reviewing for plain error only, the court found none and affirmed the district court's contempt finding and its sanction of 90 days' incarceration with purge conditions, a temporary reduction of parenting time and an attorney-fee award.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the court's published opinion; the contempt arose from decree violations unrelated to AI."}],"effects":[{"label":"a self-represented appellant's brief was struck for AI-fabricated citations and his appeal was reviewed only for plain error","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewOpinion?docId=N00013498PUB","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library PDF (text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the opinion. HTTP 200.","independence_group":"nebraska-supreme-court-opinion-2026-10-02"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which generative AI tool the appellant used and what it produced; the opinion records only his admission and the presence of fictitious citations.","Whether the appeal would have fared differently under full review; the court reviewed for plain error and found none.","Whether the appellant has served the incarceration sanction or purged it."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal is from the District Court for Sarpy County, Nebraska, and the opinion is of the Nebraska Supreme Court (opinion caption and background). The appellant litigated the divorce in Nebraska; the opinion gives no other residence.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with) on the court's own published opinion. The appellant admitted using generative AI to prepare his brief. The Nebraska Supreme Court struck the brief because its fabricated citations resulted from that use, reviewed only for plain error and affirmed the contempt order against him (informed_decision_about). The facts are documented by the opinion; the appellant is a private party in a family case and is not named in the public text.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Nebraska Supreme Court's published opinion states that the appellant's brief contained numerous citations to fictitious cases and misstatements of law 'which are the result of his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence (AI)'. The appellant used the tool himself to prepare the brief, and its output gave him the fictitious authorities he filed (communicated_with). The court then acted on that output: it read the brief, found its authorities fictitious, struck it on that ground and limited its review to plain error (informed_decision_about). The opinion does not identify the tool or quote its output.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Nebraska Supreme Court strikes a self-represented appellant's brief over fabricated citations from admitted AI use; plain-error review only (2 Oct 2026)","summary":"On 2 October 2026 the Nebraska Supreme Court struck the appellate brief of a self-represented party appealing a contempt order in his divorce case because the brief contained numerous citations to fictitious cases and misstatements of law, which the court said were the result of his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence. The court held that self-represented litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys and that submitting a brief relying on nonexistent authority is an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions. Citing the novelty of the issue for self-represented parties, it stopped short of dismissing the appeal and reviewed only for plain error, finding none and affirming the district court's contempt finding, its sanction of 90 days' incarceration with purge conditions, a temporary reduction of his parenting time and an attorney-fee award. The court warned that in future cases dismissal of the appeal may follow. The opinion does not name the AI tool.","incidentDate":"2026-10-02","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-02","aiSystem":"Generative artificial intelligence, not identified in the opinion, which the appellant admitted using to prepare an appellate brief that cited fictitious cases","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The appellant's brief was struck as a sanction for fabricated citations the court attributed to his admitted use of generative AI, so his appeal was reviewed only for plain error rather than on its assigned errors; the court affirmed the contempt order and 90-day incarceration sanction with purge conditions (Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, 2 October 2026). The opinion does not say whether the appeal would have succeeded under full review.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used generative AI to prepare the brief and whose brief was struck. The opposing party and the children are not counted as harmed by the AI-related sanction.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewOpinion?docId=N00013498PUB","primarySourceLabel":"Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, 322 Neb. 451, No. S-25-546, filed 2 October 2026 (court PDF, docId N00013498PUB)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:29:04.754849+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:43:37.291553+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated_citations","courts","self_represented_litigant","sanctions","united_states","nebraska"]}]}