{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-17T09:16:35.711Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"litigation","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":2,"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-san-diego-health-system-patient-alleges-ai-scribe-recorded-exam-room-visit-without-consent","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court claims Sharp HealthCare secretly recorded doctor-patient conversations using an artificial intelligence tool'; 'The tool records conversations between patients and clinicians and then generates draft medical notes.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A recent lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court alleges that Sharp HealthCare recorded conversations between doctors and their patients without written consent, using the information to document visits with an artificial intelligence program developed by a private company in Pittsburgh.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'A lawsuit in San Diego claims Sharp Healthcare recorded doctor visits without written consent, while using an A.I. tool called Abridge to take notes.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A proposed class action filed in San Diego Superior Court alleges that Sharp HealthCare used the AI app Abridge, which records patient-clinician conversations and generates draft medical notes, and recorded doctor-patient conversations without patients' consent.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's allegations, relayed by three outlets (one underlying origin: the complaint); not tested in court in the sources read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sharp began using an AI app called Abridge in April of this year, according to the complaint.'; 'sent the audio to the company’s servers, where employees could review it.'; 'Patients were never informed that their appointments were being recorded or given an opportunity to consent or opt-out, the lawsuit alleges.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Recordings, the lawsuit states, were transmitted to Abridge'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the complaint, Sharp began using Abridge in April 2025, and the app captured everything said in the exam room and sent the audio to the company's servers, where employees could review it; patients were never informed or given a chance to consent or opt out.","causal_attribution":"Complaint allegations; the start date and server review detail are in the KPBS relay only, the transmission to Abridge in both."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'said he discovered the recording only after reading his medical notes from a July appointment at a Sharp Rees-Stealy clinic. When he contacted Sharp, the lawsuit said the clinic apologized, acknowledged the recording occurred and told him the file could remain on the vendor’s servers for about a month before being deleted.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff says he discovered that a July appointment at a Sharp clinic had been recorded only after reading his medical notes; according to the lawsuit the clinic apologised, acknowledged the recording and said the file could remain on the vendor's servers for about a month.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's account in the complaint as reported by KPBS; Sharp's acknowledgement is as described in the lawsuit, not a Sharp statement read directly."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It also claims that Abridge automatically inserted incorrect statements into medical charts, documenting that patients “were advised” the visit was being recorded and that they “consented,” even when the patient said it never happened.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that Abridge automatically inserted incorrect statements into medical charts documenting that patients were advised the visit was being recorded and consented, even when the patient said it never happened.","causal_attribution":"Complaint allegation relayed by KPBS only; whether the tool or a clinician produced the entries is not established in the sources."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The lawsuit seeks damages, corrections to medical records, and a court order blocking the use of the AI tool without proper consent. It estimates that more than 100,000 Sharp patients may have been recorded during the rollout.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'seeks class action status and damages that could reach five thousand dollars per violation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The lawsuit seeks class status, damages, corrections to medical records and an order blocking use of the tool without consent, and estimates that more than 100,000 Sharp patients may have been recorded.","causal_attribution":"The relief sought and the estimate are the complaint's; the estimate is of people possibly recorded."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Both Sharp and Counterpoint Legal said they cannot comment on pending litigation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Sharp said that while \"patient safety and privacy are our top priorities at all times,\" it is \"unable to comment on pending litigation.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Sharp said patient safety and privacy are its top priorities and that it could not comment on pending litigation.","causal_attribution":"Sharp's statements to two outlets (one party); no response to the substance of the allegations is reported."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Abridge suggests that doctors could say, \"I will be using a tool that records our conversation to help me write my clinical note, so I can pay more attention to our conversation and less time on the computer. Is that okay with you?\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Other local hospitals say they use similar tech, but with patient permission.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Abridge's support material suggests consent language clinicians could use with patients, and other San Diego providers using similar tools say they require patient consent.","causal_attribution":"Context from the Union-Tribune's review of Abridge's support pages and both outlets' comments from other providers; not a statement about this visit."}],"effects":[{"label":"confidential clinic visit recorded and sent to an AI vendor without the patient’s knowledge (alleged)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"chart entry stating consent the patient says he never gave (alleged)","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/health/2025/12/11/lawsuit-claims-sharp-healthcare-secretly-recorded-exam-room-conversations-without-patient-consent","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; no translation.","independence_group":"kpbs-11-dec-2025"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://medicalxpress.com/news/2026-01-ai-exam-room-lawsuit-alleges.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; no translation.","independence_group":"san-diego-union-tribune-6-jan-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ai-in-the-exam-room-lawsuit-says-not-so-fast/ar-AA1TG8JK","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; no translation.","independence_group":"san-diego-union-tribune-6-jan-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["health","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether a court has ruled on the complaint or certified a class.","Sharp's and Abridge's response to the substance of the allegations.","How many patients were recorded without consent; the 100,000 figure is the complaint's estimate of patients who may have been recorded.","Whether the consent statements in charts were produced by the tool or entered by clinicians, beyond the complaint's allegation.","Whether recordings were used for anything beyond note generation."],"geography":{"basis":"The recorded visit was at a Sharp clinic and the suit was filed in San Diego Superior Court (KPBS; Union-Tribune). The plaintiff's country of residence is not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a privacy-capture case (received_personal_information) under the 2026-10-06 boundary: a reported complaint describes a patient's confidential visit actually being recorded into an AI documentation service and sent to its vendor without his knowledge, with the AI-generated chart allegedly stating he consented (made_claim_about). All facts are attributed to the complaint.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-17"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"According to the complaint as reported by KPBS and the San Diego Union-Tribune, Sharp's AI documentation app Abridge recorded the conversation at the plaintiff's July clinic visit and transmitted the audio to Abridge's servers to generate draft notes, without his knowledge or consent; the lawsuit says the clinic acknowledged the recording. The complaint also alleges that Abridge inserted chart statements that he had been advised and had consented. That capture and disclosure of his confidential visit, and the false consent entry, are the reported harm. These are allegations not yet tested in court.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Class action alleges San Diego health system Sharp's Abridge AI scribe recorded a patient's exam-room visit without consent and charted false consent","summary":"A proposed class action filed in San Diego Superior Court in late 2025 alleges that Sharp HealthCare, which began using the AI documentation app Abridge in April 2025, recorded doctor-patient conversations without telling patients, sent the audio to the vendor's servers and used it to generate draft medical notes. According to the lawsuit as reported by KPBS, the named plaintiff discovered that a July appointment at a Sharp clinic had been recorded only when he read his medical notes; the clinic apologised, acknowledged the recording and told him the file could stay on the vendor's servers for about a month. The complaint also alleges that Abridge inserted statements into charts that patients had been advised of the recording and had consented, when the plaintiff says that never happened. It seeks damages, corrected medical records and an order against using the tool without consent, and estimates that more than 100,000 patients may have been recorded. Sharp told reporters it could not comment on pending litigation. The allegations have not been tested in court in the sources read.","incidentDate":"2025-07-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-12-11","aiSystem":"Abridge, an AI clinical documentation app that, according to the complaint as reported, records patient-clinician conversations and generates draft medical notes; deployed by Sharp HealthCare from April 2025","aiProduct":"Abridge (reported)","aiCompany":"Abridge","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_autonomy","other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to a proposed class action, a patient's confidential clinic visit was recorded by an AI documentation tool and sent to its vendor without his knowledge or consent, and his chart falsely recorded that he had consented.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the named plaintiff whose July visit, the lawsuit says, was recorded (KPBS). The complaint alleges other patients were recorded without consent but gives only an estimate that more than 100,000 'may have been recorded', which is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.kpbs.org/news/health/2025/12/11/lawsuit-claims-sharp-healthcare-secretly-recorded-exam-room-conversations-without-patient-consent","primarySourceLabel":"KPBS, 11 December 2025: lawsuit claims Sharp HealthCare secretly recorded exam room conversations without patient consent","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-17T03:04:33.888418+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-17T03:04:33.888418+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai_scribe","ambient_documentation","recording_without_consent","medical_privacy","class_action"]},{"id":"2026-st-louis-county-gatlin-facial-recognition-wrongful-arrest-lawsuit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Jan 13, 2025 | COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants ... filed by Christopher Gatlin'; 'Jan 29, 2025 | AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant Matthew Shute, St. Louis County, Surescan Technology, LLC, The City of Saint Louis, Matthew Welle, Cody Goodwin'; 'Oct 15, 2025 | MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of St. Louis's Motion to Dismiss Count 9 (Doc. 22 ) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Matthew Welle's Motion to Dismiss Counts 2-5 and 10-12 (Doc. 25 ) is granted in part in that Count V is hereby dismissed, and denied in all other respects.'; 'Aug 13, 2026 | SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant All Defendants'; 'Aug 25, 2026 | SUMMONS Returned Executed filed by Christopher Gatlin. Amazon Web Services, Inc. served on 8/18/2026'; 'Aug 27, 2026 | ANSWER to 105 Amended Complaint'; 'Sep 8, 2026 | ORDER granting 115 Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer ... due no later than September 21'; 'Sep 17, 2026 | MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Plead ;Proposed extension date September 28, 2026 by Defendant Amazon Web Services'; 'Aug 31, 2026 | ADR COMPLIANCE REPORT ... The parties did not achieve a settlement.'; 'Jul 23, 2026 | AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER ... Jury Trial set for 11/1/2027 09:00 AM ... Pretrial Conference set for 10/27/2027'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Christopher Gatlin alleged Thursday in an amended complaint that his arrest and indictment were the product of shoddy police work, poor training, police misconduct, and the use of a defective facial recognition program developed by Amazon for law enforcement use, known as the Rekognition program.'; 'Gatlin originally filed the lawsuit in January 2025, but amended the complaint to name Amazon as a defendant'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Amazon has until Sept. 28 to file a response to the suit's allegations.'; 'Gatlin sued in January of this year. His suit lists 14 counts against the various defendants'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Gatlin filed a civil-rights suit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on 13 January 2025 against St. Louis County, the City of St. Louis and named officers (an amended complaint of 29 January 2025 also named Surescan Technology, LLC, dismissed on 8 May 2025); on 15 October 2025 the court denied the City's motion to dismiss and granted Welle's motion only as to Count V; on 13 August 2026 the court granted leave for a second amended complaint adding Amazon Web Services, which was served on 18 August 2026; the county, its officers, the city and Welle answered on 27 August 2026; AWS's response deadline was extended to 21 September 2026 and AWS moved on 17 September for a further extension to 28 September (no ruling on the docket when read); a July 2026 mediation did not settle; a pretrial conference is set for 27 October 2027 and a jury trial for 1 November 2027.","causal_attribution":"Court docket entries; the Surescan dismissal is docket entry 31 (8 May 2025); the 28 September date is AWS's requested extension (motion of 17 September, unruled when read) and the Post-Dispatch's report; the trial date is from the amended case management order of 23 July 2026 (the earlier 23 August 2027 date in the 5 May 2026 order was superseded)."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'Eight months later, in August 2021, Shute and one of the other officers, St. Louis Officer Matthew Welle, revisited the case and uploaded a \"grainy surveillance photo\" from the bus into SMRT.'; 'The program spit out a list of names. On that list: Gatlin.'; 'Gatlin was charged with first-degree assault and held in jail for almost two years.'; 'Gatlin's public defender filed a motion to suppress the photo identification, arguing it was unconstitutionally suggestive, and the judge agreed'; 'On March 14, 2024 — more than two years after Gatlin's arrest — prosecutors dismissed the charges.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'Biometric Update reported that Gatlin was arrested on August 14, 2021, and remained incarcerated for roughly 17 months while his case was pending.'; 'St. Louis County Judge Brian May suppressed the witness identification in February 2024 after finding officers had not followed accepted impartial-lineup procedures, and prosecutors dismissed the charges the following month, Biometric Update reported.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'A man who was wrongfully arrested and held in the St. Louis County Jail for two years sued Amazon Web Services LLC along with the city and county over their allegedly improper use of facial recognition technology.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Christopher Gatlin, arrested by police in St. Louis, Missouri (August 2021)'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Gatlin was arrested in August 2021 (13 August per the Post-Dispatch's 'four days' after the 9 August lineup; 14 August per Biometric Update via Hoodline) for a December 2020 assault on a security guard at the St. Charles Rock Road MetroLink station after two officers of a joint county-city MetroLink team uploaded a grainy bus surveillance photo into the St. Louis Mugshot Recognition Technology System and the guard, after prompting, picked Gatlin from a photo lineup; he was charged with first-degree assault and held roughly 17 months to almost two years; the identification was suppressed as unconstitutionally suggestive and prosecutors dismissed the charges on 14 March 2024.","causal_attribution":"The Post-Dispatch's own account of the investigation and the suit, Biometric Update via Hoodline, Bloomberg Law and the ACLU; the jail duration is stated differently by each (roughly 17 months while pending; almost two years; two years) and the arrest date differs by a day."},{"id":"c3","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'in a statement, the company said its terms of service prohibit the use of its facial recognition technology in criminal investigations.'; '\"We expect our customers to comply with those terms,\" the company said in an unsigned statement.'; 'it said it would \"fully investigate\" any additional information that comes out during litigation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'The company told Biometric Update that its terms of service prohibit the use of Rekognition's face-comparison feature by police departments in connection with criminal investigations. Amazon's current Rekognition documentation also states the technology does not support images that are too blurry or grainy for a human to recognize a face'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Amazon says its terms of service prohibit the use of its facial recognition technology in criminal investigations, that it expects customers to comply and that it will fully investigate any information that emerges in the litigation; Biometric Update adds that Rekognition's documentation excludes images too blurry or grainy for a human to recognise a face.","causal_attribution":"Amazon's statements to the Post-Dispatch and to Biometric Update (via Hoodline)."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Gatlin, who now lives outside of Missouri, says he suffers from mental health issues since he was released.'; 'No one has been charged with Feldman's assault.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Gatlin says he has suffered from mental health issues since his release; the assault victim, who was not the person the officers were pursuing in this suit, continues to suffer lasting injury and no one has been charged with the assault.","causal_attribution":"Gatlin's own account to the Post-Dispatch."}],"effects":[{"label":"arrested and jailed roughly 17 months to almost two years on a first-degree assault charge dismissed in March 2024, after officers acted on a facial-recognition match from a grainy bus photo and a suggestive photo lineup; lasting mental-health effects reported","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69538618/gatlin-v-welle/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (CourtListener docket 69538618, descending and ascending entry pages). Entry text quoted; the pleadings themselves were not opened (no free RECAP PDFs listed).","independence_group":"courtlistener-docket"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/amazon-facial-id-tech-targeted-in-st-louis-false-arrest-suit","kind":"legal_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (Bloomberg Law News, 14 August 2026). Only the opening paragraphs before the subscriber wall were rendered; the cited passages are from them.","independence_group":"bloomberglaw"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/more-than-a-dozen-wrongful-arrests-due-to-police-reliance-on-facial-recognition-technology","kind":"advocacy_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (ACLU, 14 April 2026). Lists Gatlin among fourteen known facial-recognition wrongful arrests.","independence_group":"aclu"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/09/st-louis-county-man-jailed-in-case-involving-facial-id-match-sues/","kind":"news_aggregator","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-26 (Hoodline, 25 September 2026). Aggregates the Post-Dispatch, Biometric Update, IDTechWire and Bloomberg Law; used here mainly for the Biometric Update passages (17 months, 14 August 2021 arrest, Judge May, February 2024 suppression), which were not read directly.","independence_group":"hoodline-aggregating-stltoday-biometricupdate"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-courts/article_21ae18eb-d1d4-44e8-9e8f-0c6f3c92b94d.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-26 (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 25 September 2026). The page delivered the article body in the Lee/BLOX ROT47 obfuscation; decoded locally (bodies/stltoday-gatlin-decoded.txt) and read in full: the assault, the investigation, the SMRT upload, the body-camera lineup, the dismissal date, the suit's counts and Amazon's statement.","independence_group":"stltoday"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Whether the mugshot system's match was the sole basis for the arrest or how it was weighed against the lineup identification; the complaint's allegations have not been tested.","The exact arrest date (13 August 2021 per the Post-Dispatch's account; 14 August per Biometric Update via Hoodline) and the length of detention (roughly 17 months while pending per Biometric Update; almost two years per the Post-Dispatch; two years per Bloomberg Law).","The size of the mug-shot database (more than 500,000 per the suit as reported by the Post-Dispatch; more than 250,000 per Biometric Update via Hoodline).","Whether Rekognition was in fact the engine behind SMRT during the 2021 search; Amazon disputes intended use, and AWS had not yet answered when the docket was read.","The contents of the second amended complaint and the 15 October 2025 order, which were not opened.","The plaintiff's current state of residence (outside Missouri)."],"geography":{"basis":"The assault and the arrest concerned the St. Charles Rock Road MetroLink station in north St. Louis County and the plaintiff was jailed in St. Louis County (Post-Dispatch; ACLU: 'arrested by police in St. Louis, Missouri'); the suit is in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (docket). The plaintiff now lives outside Missouri (Post-Dispatch); his state of residence is not given.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case in which a facial-recognition system's match about a person contributed, on the plaintiff's account, to a wrongful arrest and roughly 17 months to almost two years' detention: the litigation is documented on the federal docket, the arrest, lineup and dismissal are reported by the Post-Dispatch (read in full), Biometric Update via Hoodline and Bloomberg Law, and the ACLU lists the case. The allegations against the police and Amazon remain allegations.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-26"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges, and the Post-Dispatch, Biometric Update and IDTechWire reporting summarised by Hoodline describes, that officers uploaded the bus photo into the St. Louis Mugshot Recognition Technology System and built the investigation around its match; Bloomberg Law reports the amended complaint's allegation that the system used Amazon's Rekognition. No court finding on the system's role is reported; the ACLU lists the case as a facial-recognition wrongful arrest.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"St. Louis County, Missouri: Christopher Gatlin was arrested in August 2021 after officers ran a grainy bus surveillance photo through a regional facial-recognition system and was held roughly 17 months (Post-Dispatch and Bloomberg Law: about two years) on a first-degree assault charge dismissed in March 2024; his federal civil-rights suit (filed January 2025) was amended in August 2026 to add Amazon Web Services, whose Rekognition technology the complaint says underpinned the match","summary":"Christopher Gatlin was arrested on 14 August 2021 for an assault at the St. Charles Rock Road MetroLink station after a joint St. Louis County and city team uploaded a grainy, blurry surveillance photograph from a bus into the St. Louis Mugshot Recognition Technology System, a facial-recognition tool that searches stored mug shots (more than 500,000 uploaded, the suit says per the Post-Dispatch; more than 250,000 per Biometric Update via Hoodline), and built the investigation around the resulting match together with a witness identification; he was charged with first-degree assault and held roughly 17 months (the Post-Dispatch says almost two years), a county judge suppressed the witness identification as unconstitutionally suggestive, and prosecutors dismissed the charges on 14 March 2024 (Post-Dispatch; Hoodline citing Biometric Update; Bloomberg Law). Gatlin sued St. Louis County, the City of St. Louis and named officers in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on 13 January 2025; on 15 October 2025 the court denied the city's motion to dismiss and granted a detective's motion only as to one count; on 13 August 2026 the court allowed a second amended complaint adding Amazon Web Services, which the complaint says supplied the Rekognition program the system used; the county, city and officers answered on 27 August 2026, AWS's response was extended to 21 September 2026 and on 17 September it moved for a further extension to 28 September (no ruling on the docket when read), and a jury trial is set for 1 November 2027 (CourtListener docket). Amazon told the Post-Dispatch that its terms of service prohibit the use of its facial recognition technology in criminal investigations and that it would fully investigate any information that emerges in the litigation. The ACLU lists Gatlin among fourteen people known to have been wrongfully arrested in the US because police relied on erroneous facial-recognition results.","incidentDate":"2021-08-14","incidentEndDate":"2024-03-14","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-01-13","aiSystem":"St. Louis Mugshot Recognition Technology System (SMRT), a regional facial-recognition tool created by St. Louis County with an Amazon Rekognition credit in June 2018 and loaded with more than 500,000 mug shots according to the suit (Post-Dispatch; Biometric Update via Hoodline gives more than 250,000)","aiProduct":"St. Louis mugshot recognition (SMRT)","aiCompany":"Amazon Web Services (Rekognition, per the amended complaint as reported)","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","legal_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Gatlin was jailed for roughly 17 months to almost two years on a first-degree assault charge dismissed in March 2024 after the identification evidence was suppressed; his suit attributes the arrest to reliance on a facial-recognition match from an unusable photograph together with a suggestive lineup (the complaint's allegations as reported by the Post-Dispatch, Bloomberg Law and Hoodline; the ACLU lists the case as a wrongful arrest). He told the Post-Dispatch he has suffered from mental health issues since his release.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person arrested and jailed, the plaintiff (docket; Hoodline; ACLU). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MO","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69538618/gatlin-v-welle/","primarySourceLabel":"CourtListener docket, Gatlin v. Welle, 4:25-cv-00043 (E.D. Mo.), read 26 September 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-26T04:07:10.387911+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:58:41.366922+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","wrongful-arrest","police","rekognition","amazon","lawsuit","civil-rights","missouri","st-louis","made-claim-about"]}]}