{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T14:07:14.860Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"microsoft","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":5,"coverage":{"cases":5,"countries":3,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":5,"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-illinois-fireflies-ai-meeting-assistant-voiceprint-capture-lawsuits","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"While physically present in Illinois, Plaintiff participated in a virtual meeting on November 18, 2025 ... During the meeting, Fireflies was enabled by a meeting participant using ... During the meeting, Fireflies recorded Plaintiff’s voice, analyzed her vocal characteristics to distinguish her as a unique speaker, and generated transcripts attributing statements to Plaintiff, thereby capturing Plaintiff’s voiceprint. ... Plaintiff never created a Fireflies account, never agreed to Fireflies’ Terms of Service, and never executed any written release authorizing Fireflies to collect or store her biometric data.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A complaint filed in the Central District of Illinois on 18 December 2025 alleges that, during a virtual meeting on 18 November 2025 that the plaintiff joined while in Illinois, a meeting participant enabled Fireflies, and Fireflies recorded her voice, analysed her vocal characteristics to distinguish her as a speaker and generated transcripts attributing statements to her; she says she never had a Fireflies account or gave written consent.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's own allegation in a complaint; not tested by any ruling."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In March and April 2025, while working from home for his ... The meetings were recorded by the Fireflies account of a ... characteristics to distinguish him as a unique speaker, and generated transcripts attributing ... never created a Fireflies account, never agreed to Fireflies’ Terms of","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A complaint filed in the Northern District of California on 23 March 2026 by another Illinois resident alleges that in March and April 2025, while working from home, he attended virtual meetings recorded through another person's Fireflies account, and that Fireflies recorded his voice, analysed his vocal characteristics and generated transcripts attributing statements to him, without his having an account or giving written consent.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's own allegation in a complaint; not tested by any ruling."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"April 2025 and October 2025, he attended multiple virtual meetings ... on Microsoft Teams that were recorded by his boss’s Fireflies’ ... has attended several virtual meetings where Fireflies was being used. ... voice, analyzed his vocal characteristics to distinguish him as a unique speaker, and generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"A consolidated complaint filed in the Northern District of Illinois on 24 June 2026 alleges that one plaintiff attended Microsoft Teams meetings between April and October 2025 that were recorded by his boss's Fireflies account, and that a second plaintiff attended several virtual meetings where Fireflies was used, and that in each case Fireflies recorded the plaintiff's voice, analysed his vocal characteristics and generated transcripts attributing statements to him.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs' allegations in a consolidated complaint; Fireflies has moved to dismiss."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Fireflies did not inform Plaintiff, in writing or otherwise, that it was collecting her ... Although Fireflies’ software can inform meeting participants that it is present on a meeting, it does not inform participants that it is collecting voiceprints or biometric data.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Fireflies did not inform Plaintiff, in writing or otherwise, that it was collecting his","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Fireflies did not inform Plaintiffs, in writing or otherwise, that it was collecting ... Although Fireflies’ software can inform meeting participants that it is present on a meeting, it does","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"All three complaints allege that Fireflies did not tell the plaintiffs it was collecting voiceprints or biometric data, although its software can tell meeting participants that it is present, and did not obtain their written consent.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiffs' allegations, drafted by the same plaintiffs' firm in all three complaints; the complaints say allegations about other matters rest on information and belief."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Plaintiff hereby dismisses, without prejudice, all of her claims against Defendant in the above-captioned lawsuit","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff in the Central District of Illinois case voluntarily dismissed all her claims without prejudice on 10 March 2026.","causal_attribution":"Established by the filed notice. The notice gives no reason."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"staying this case pending the resolution of Fireflies’ anticipated motion to dismiss the amended ... two nearly identical cases filed in the ... Document 25 Filed 04/24/26 ... IT IS S ... O ORD","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"In the California case the plaintiff and Fireflies jointly asked the court to stay proceedings pending Fireflies' anticipated motion to dismiss in the Illinois cases, which the stipulation calls nearly identical, and the court entered the stipulation with its order stamp on 24 April 2026.","causal_attribution":"Established by the filed joint stipulation and the court’s order stamp on it (document 25)."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"First, plaintiffs lack Article III standing to assert a claim under Section 15(a) of BIPA ... Second, the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety under Rule 12(b)(2) because ... By referring to “biometric data” here and elsewhere, Fireflies does not concede that it collected, possessed, stored, or used any data regarding plaintiffs that falls within the scope of BIPA.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"Fireflies has moved to dismiss the Northern District of Illinois case, arguing among other things lack of standing for one claim and lack of personal jurisdiction, and says it does not concede that it collected, stored or used any data about the plaintiffs that falls within the Illinois biometric privacy law.","causal_attribution":"Established as the content of Fireflies' filed motion; its arguments are a party's position, not a ruling."}],"effects":[{"label":"plaintiffs say an AI meeting assistant they never signed up for recorded their voices and captured voiceprints without notice or written consent","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Class action complaint, C.D. Ill. No. 3:25-cv-03399, filed 18 December 2025; read in full on 2026-10-20 from the CourtListener RECAP copy.","independence_group":"cdill-plaintiff-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340.13.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Notice of voluntary dismissal, C.D. Ill. No. 3:25-cv-03399, filed 10 March 2026; read on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy).","independence_group":"cdill-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.466340/gov.uscourts.cand.466340.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Class action complaint, N.D. Cal. No. 3:26-cv-02479, filed 23 March 2026; read in full on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy).","independence_group":"ndcal-plaintiff-complaint"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.466340/gov.uscourts.cand.466340.25.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Joint stipulation requesting a stay (dated 23 April 2026), entered as document 25 on 24 April 2026 with the court’s ‘IT IS SO ORDERED’ stamp on page 4 (the text layer renders the stamp in fragments), N.D. Cal. No. 3:26-cv-02479; read on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy).","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496785/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496785.27.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Consolidated class action complaint, N.D. Ill. No. 1:26-cv-02675, filed 24 June 2026; read in full on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy).","independence_group":"ndill-plaintiffs-complaint"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496785/gov.uscourts.ilnd.496785.31.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Fireflies.AI Corp.'s motion to dismiss, N.D. Ill. No. 1:26-cv-02675, filed 15 July 2026; read on 2026-10-20 (RECAP copy).","independence_group":"fireflies-motion"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","work"],"unknowns":["Whether Fireflies in fact created voiceprints of the plaintiffs: it does not concede collecting biometric data and no court has ruled.","Whether the plaintiffs knew the meetings were being recorded or transcribed; the complaints say only that they were not told voiceprints were collected.","Why the first plaintiff dismissed her case without prejudice.","The outcome of Fireflies' motion to dismiss the consolidated Illinois case.","The fourth plaintiff's meeting dates are not stated in the consolidated complaint."],"geography":{"basis":"Each complaint says the plaintiff took part in the meetings while physically present in Illinois (C.D. Ill. and N.D. Cal. complaints; N.D. Ill. consolidated complaint). The courts are federal courts in Illinois and California.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-10-06 privacy clarification: four Illinois residents allege in filed complaints that an AI meeting assistant enabled by someone else recorded their voices, analysed them to distinguish speakers and generated transcripts attributing statements to them, capturing voiceprints without notice or written consent. The captures are allegations, Fireflies contests the suits, and one case was voluntarily dismissed. Plaintiffs, employers and the hosting organisation are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-20"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Each complaint alleges that the Fireflies AI meeting assistant, enabled by another participant's or an organisation's account, itself recorded the plaintiff's voice in a virtual meeting, analysed the plaintiff's vocal characteristics to distinguish speakers and generated transcripts attributing statements to the plaintiff, capturing a voiceprint without notice or written consent (C.D. Ill., N.D. Cal. and N.D. Ill. complaints). That capture of the plaintiffs' voices and voiceprints by an AI transcription service is the reported privacy harm. Fireflies says it does not concede that it collected any biometric data about the plaintiffs, and no court has ruled, so the capture is alleged.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"Illinois residents allege in lawsuits that Fireflies.AI's meeting assistant captured their voiceprints without notice or consent","summary":"Four Illinois residents who say they never had Fireflies accounts allege in four federal lawsuits, two of them later consolidated, that the Fireflies.AI meeting assistant, enabled by a colleague, boss or meeting organiser, recorded their voices in Zoom or Microsoft Teams meetings between March and November 2025, analysed their vocal characteristics to tell speakers apart and generated transcripts attributing statements to them, capturing voiceprints without telling them or obtaining written consent, in breach of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. One plaintiff dismissed her case without prejudice in March 2026; the California court stayed its case at both parties’ joint request in April 2026; Fireflies has moved to dismiss the consolidated Illinois case and does not concede that it collected biometric data about the plaintiffs.","incidentDate":"2025-03-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-11-18","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2025-12-18","aiSystem":"Fireflies, Fireflies.AI Corp.'s AI meeting assistant, joined to Zoom and Microsoft Teams meetings through another participant's or organisation's account (as alleged in the complaints)","aiProduct":"Fireflies.AI meeting assistant (reported)","aiCompany":"Fireflies.AI Corp.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Four Illinois residents allege that an AI meeting assistant they never signed up for recorded their voices and captured voiceprints without notice or consent; Fireflies contests the suits and no ruling has found a capture.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":4,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Four named plaintiffs each allege their own voice was recorded and voiceprint captured (C.D. Ill. complaint; N.D. Cal. complaint; N.D. Ill. consolidated complaint for two plaintiffs). Putative class members and Fireflies' stated user numbers are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340/gov.uscourts.ilcd.98340.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Class action complaint against Fireflies.AI Corp., C.D. Ill. No. 3:25-cv-03399, filed 18 December 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-20T03:13:40.245348+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-20T03:13:40.245348+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["fireflies-ai","ai-notetaker","meeting-transcription","privacy","bipa","voiceprint","class-action","non-user"]},{"id":"2025-birmingham-maccabi-tel-aviv-away-fan-ban-police-report-false-match-attributed-to-copilot","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"However, I am concerned about the accuracy of the written report that WMP gave the Chair of the SAG for the meeting on 24 October 2025.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"It contained several inaccuracies","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"“The most recent match Maccabi Tel Aviv played in the UK was against West Ham United in the UEFA Europa Conference League group stage on 9th November 2023”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"As has been widely reported, there was no such fixture.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the inclusion of a fictitious match between Maccabi Tel Aviv and West Ham in police intelligence","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"which had never taken place","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A written West Midlands Police report given to Birmingham City Council's Safety Advisory Group for its 24 October 2025 meeting stated that Maccabi Tel Aviv's most recent UK match was against West Ham United on 9 November 2023, and no such fixture existed. The Chief Constable later acknowledged that a fictitious match between the two clubs had been included in police intelligence.","causal_attribution":"The inspectorate review of the report and the Chief Constable's admission of the error (as relayed by the Guardian) are separate chains. The Guardian describes the fictitious match as included in police intelligence and does not name the 24 October report. The link to the report rests on the inspectorate letter. The letter is preliminary, and the inspectorate says its views may develop or change."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"This interviewee told us in clear terms that the erroneous statement was the result of a search the force carried out using Microsoft Copilot.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the force didn’t use artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the preparation of the SAG report","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"arose as a result of a use of Microsoft Copilot","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"had previously told MPs that the force did not use AI","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The erroneous West Ham statement is attributed by a West Midlands Police interviewee and by the Chief Constable to a Microsoft Copilot search. The Chief Constable had earlier told the inspectorate and MPs that the force did not use AI.","causal_attribution":"Both attributions come from West Midlands Police personnel, so they are one chain. The inspectorate did not inspect the Copilot query or output. The interviewee described the error as an AI hallucination."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"one individual doing one Google search","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"In an email to the home affairs select committee published on Wednesday","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"“profound apology” for the error","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Chief Constable had told MPs the mistake was made by one individual doing one Google search, and in an email to the Home Affairs Committee published on 14 January 2026 apologised for giving incorrect evidence.","causal_attribution":"The Chief Constable's own account of the evidence given, relayed by the Guardian."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"the Chair of the SAG wrote to the Chief Operating Officer of Aston Villa FC, advising that the club should reduce to zero the ticket allocation to Maccabi Tel Aviv fans.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"no away fans may attend the UEFA Europa League match with Maccabi Tel Aviv","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 16 October 2025 the Safety Advisory Group advised Aston Villa to reduce to zero the ticket allocation for Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters, and the club confirmed that no away fans could attend the 6 November 2025 match.","causal_attribution":"The restriction is the Safety Advisory Group's advice. The inspectorate letter and the Aston Villa statement (relayed by Al Jazeera) are separate chains."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The original decision to restrict to zero the ticket allocation for away fans was made during those oral briefings.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The force’s 16 October 2025 oral briefing didn’t repeat the inaccuracies of the 10 October 2025 letter","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I am satisfied that the silver commander’s initial oral briefing to the SAG wasn’t materially inaccurate.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"But those inaccuracies would of course have been in the gold and silver commanders’ minds when they decided to recommend the force’s preferred tactical option.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The Chair stated that the SAG would rely on that report as “a wholly fresh consideration of the issue”.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The inspectorate states that the original decision to restrict away-fan tickets was made during the 7 and 16 October oral briefings. It says the 16 October briefing did not repeat the inaccuracies of the 10 October letter or introduce those of the 24 October report, and that the 7 October briefing was not materially inaccurate apart from one discrepancy. It adds that those inaccuracies \"would of course have been in the gold and silver commanders’ minds when they decided to recommend the force’s preferred tactical option\". The Chair of the Safety Advisory Group said the group would rely on the 24 October report as a wholly fresh consideration of the issue.","causal_attribution":"The inspectorate places the ban advice before the 24 October report. The sources inspected do not establish which inaccuracies reached the commanders before the 16 October advice, whether the Safety Advisory Group changed its advice on 24 October, or that the Copilot output caused the ban."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"confirmation bias, in relation to the anticipated behaviour of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans and the potential disorder their presence might cause, influenced both the content and strength of assessments WMP gave to the SAG.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I have found no evidence to support a view that antisemitism played any part in WMP stating that its preferred tactical option was to reduce to zero the ticket allocation to Maccabi Tel Aviv fans.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The inspectorate concluded that confirmation bias about the behaviour of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans influenced the content and strength of the force's assessments to the group and found no evidence that antisemitism played a part in the force's preferred option.","causal_attribution":"The inspectorate's preliminary view. It says confirmation bias influenced the content and strength of the force's assessments and played a part in how the force reached its preferred option. Its finding on the Copilot attribution is limited to recording the interviewee's account."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Maccabi Tel Aviv will decline any tickets offered to their fans for a Europa League away match at Aston Villa","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"we have taken the decision to decline any allocation offered on behalf of away fans","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Maccabi Tel Aviv announced it would decline any away ticket allocation for the match.","causal_attribution":"The club's own statement. It gave safety concerns as its reason."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"the inspection you commissioned on 31 October 2025","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"It does not constitute my final inspection report.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Home Secretary commissioned an inspection on 31 October 2025 of police contributions to safety advisory groups, and the inspectorate reported its preliminary views on the Aston Villa v Maccabi Tel Aviv fixture on 14 January 2026.","causal_attribution":"The letter documents its own date and status."}],"effects":[{"label":"Away supporters barred from a match after safety advisory group advice; the police report later given to the group contained a false fixture attributed to Microsoft Copilot","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inspection-of-police-forces-contributions-to-safety-advisory-groups-west-midlands-police/inspection-of-police-forces-contributions-to-safety-advisory-groups-west-midlands-police-accessible","kind":"official_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"hmicfrs-letter"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/14/west-midlands-police-chief-apologises-ai-error-maccabi-tel-aviv-ban","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"wmp-chief-constable-account"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/sports/2025/10/17/israeli-maccabi-tel-aviv-football-fans-barred-from-europa-league-game-in-uk","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"aston-villa-statement"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://malaymail.com/news/sports/2025/10/21/israeli-football-club-refuses-europa-league-away-seats-after-uk-police-deem-match-high-risk/195351","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"maccabi-club-statement"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["public_services","justice"],"unknowns":["The inspectorate letter says some inaccuracies in the 24 October report had appeared earlier in the 10 October 2025 letter from the gold commander and does not state whether the West Ham statement was one of them. It does not state when the Copilot search was done or what the report said happened at the claimed fixture. The incident date is the report date, not the search date. The West Ham item concerns the club's fixture history, and the report as a whole is described as imbalanced about the previous behaviour of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans.","Whether the Safety Advisory Group changed or confirmed its advice at the 24 October 2025 meeting is not stated in the inspected sources.","The Copilot query, its output and how the false fixture entered the report were not inspected. The inspectorate heard contradictory evidence from the Chief Constable and another interviewee.","How many supporters intended to attend, held tickets or were otherwise affected is not stated.","The inspectorate letter is preliminary and a final report was still to come. The final findings were not inspected.","Later events such as any resignation or watchdog referral appear only as related-article headlines on the Guardian page and are not cited."],"geography":{"basis":"The inspectorate publication applies to England and Wales and concerns Birmingham City Council's Safety Advisory Group and West Midlands Police. The supporters' countries of residence are not stated.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"The inspectorate letter and the Guardian article were read in full, and the Aston Villa and club statements were read via Al Jazeera and Malay Mail. The AI attribution rests on West Midlands Police accounts. The letter dates the ban advice before the report and does not attribute the ban to the AI output, and the record says so.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"A West Midlands Police interviewee told the inspectorate the false fixture came from a Microsoft Copilot search, and the Chief Constable later said the same. Both accounts come from the force, and the Copilot query and output were not inspected.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Birmingham: police report to a safety advisory group contained a fixture that never happened, attributed to Microsoft Copilot, during the Maccabi Tel Aviv away-fan restriction","summary":"On 24 October 2025 West Midlands Police gave Birmingham City Council's Safety Advisory Group a written report that cited a Maccabi Tel Aviv v West Ham match on 9 November 2023 that never took place. The group had advised on 16 October that Aston Villa give no tickets to Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters for the 6 November 2025 match. In January 2026 the Chief Constable said the error arose from use of Microsoft Copilot, after earlier telling MPs it came from a Google search. The inspectorate found the ban advice predated the report and said confirmation bias influenced the force's assessments to the group. The sources do not show the Copilot output caused the ban.","incidentDate":"2025-10-24","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-01-14","aiSystem":"Microsoft Copilot (reported by West Midlands Police personnel; query and output not inspected)","aiProduct":"Microsoft Copilot (reported)","aiCompany":"Microsoft","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The inspectorate letter and Aston Villa's statement report that Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters were barred from attending the 6 November 2025 match. The sources read do not establish that the AI output caused the restriction.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"unquantified","affectedCountEvidence":"The number of Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters who intended to travel or held ticket entitlements is not stated in the inspected sources, so numeric zero placeholders are used.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inspection-of-police-forces-contributions-to-safety-advisory-groups-west-midlands-police/inspection-of-police-forces-contributions-to-safety-advisory-groups-west-midlands-police-accessible","primarySourceLabel":"HMICFRS letter to the Home Secretary (14 Jan 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:29:14.45878+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:57.124795+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-us-eightfold-ai-match-score-applicant-screening-class-action","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"about unsuspecting job applicants and to score them from 0 to 5 for potential employers based on","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This results in a Match Score, which ranges from 0 through 5 in increments of","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Employers then use these reports to sift through","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"But candidates who apply for jobs at companies that use those tools are not given notice and a chance to dispute errors","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that Eightfold collects applicant information and scores applicants from 0 to 5 by predicted likelihood of success for employers, that employers use these reports to sift applications, and that Eightfold provides no notice, access or dispute rights.","causal_attribution":"These are the plaintiffs' allegations as stated in a filing. The filing establishes only its own contents."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In or around July 2025,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"applied online via Microsoft’s website for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Manager-Responsible AI position two days after she applied, without being invited to interview.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On or around December 16, 2025,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"received an automated rejection for the Senior Technical Program","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint says one plaintiff applied to Microsoft in or around July 2025 and again around 16 December 2025, and received an automated rejection two days after the first application without an interview.","causal_attribution":"The complaint attributes the screening to Eightfold's Evaluation Tools used by the employer. No employer record or score was inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On or around December 17,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"applied online via Paypal’s website","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"was not asked to interview and was not given a job offer for any of the","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint says the other plaintiff applied to PayPal on or around 17 December 2025 for two roles and was not asked to interview or given an offer for any position applied to.","causal_attribution":"The complaint alleges Eightfold's tools were applied to this application. Reuters reports the plaintiffs believe the tools played a role. The link to any specific rejection is not established."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"is being sued in California for allegedly compiling reports used to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"On January 20, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"sued in California state court on behalf of all U.S. job seekers who applied for jobs","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Neither was hired, and both believe that Eightfold's tools played a role.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The proposed class action was filed by two women with STEM backgrounds who believe Eightfold’s AI tools hurt their careers by unfairly screening them out","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Reuters reports the plaintiffs, who are not named by this record, filed a proposed class action in California state court on 20 January 2026 on behalf of all US job seekers evaluated with the tools, and that neither plaintiff was hired and both believe Eightfold's tools played a role.","causal_attribution":"Reuters and the plaintiffs' counsel release both trace to the complaint and counsel. They are one reporting chain."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"We do not scrape social media and the like.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"said the platform operates on data shared by candidates or provided by customers.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"An Eightfold spokesperson said the platform does not scrape social media and operates on data shared by candidates or provided by customers.","causal_attribution":"Company statement to Reuters. It disputes the complaint's data-collection allegation and does not address the scoring allegation."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Document 1 Filed 03/02/26","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/24/2026.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"NOTICE OF REMOVAL Eightfold AI, Inc.'s Notice of Removal from Contra Costa Superior Court.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"MOTION to Dismiss filed by Eightfold AI Inc..","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"ORDER VACATING HEARING Re: 29 MOTION to Dismiss.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Eightfold removed the case to the US District Court for the Northern District of California on 2 March 2026 and filed a motion to dismiss. The docket shows the hearing on that motion vacated on 24 July 2026 and no ruling in the entries inspected.","causal_attribution":"Procedural facts documented by the court docket. The docket does not establish the merits."}],"effects":[{"label":"Applicants allegedly scored and screened by an undisclosed AI ranking without statutory notice or dispute rights, and not interviewed or hired","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465146/gov.uscourts.cand.465146.1.0_2.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ai-company-eightfold-sued-helping-181520410.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.outtengolden.com/newsroom/landmark-class-action-accuses-eightfold-ai-of-illegally-producing-hidden-credit-reports-on-job-applicants","kind":"organisation_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72351430/kistler-v-eightfold-ai-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"court-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether Eightfold's tools produced a score for either plaintiff or influenced either employer's decision is not established. The complaint and reports rest on the plaintiffs' allegations and belief.","The start date of the alleged practice is not stated. The incident range covers only the plaintiffs' dated applications (July to December 2025). The complaint says one plaintiff has applied to Microsoft and other employers since 2023. Earlier applications are not described and are outside this record.","Whether the defendant's tools collected social media or other third-party data about the plaintiffs is disputed by Eightfold and unresolved.","The other plaintiff's location is not stated in the sources inspected.","The outcome of the pending motion to dismiss is unknown. Docket entry 46 (24 Sep 2026, a statement of recent decision) had no readable content.","Microsoft and PayPal are not defendants. Microsoft declined comment and no PayPal response was inspected."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint states that one plaintiff lives in, applied from and was denied employment while living in Contra Costa County, California. The removed case is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The other plaintiff's location is not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The complaint was read from the copy attached to the defendant's notice of removal, with Reuters, the plaintiffs' counsel release and the court docket. The plaintiffs are described by role and not named. All allegations are attributed and remain at reported status. The AIAAIC archive entry had no description and is not cited.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges Eightfold's Match Score model scored and ranked the plaintiffs' applications for the employers. Eightfold's statement disputes the alleged data collection. No document showing a score for either plaintiff was inspected.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: two applicants sue Eightfold AI over 0-to-5 applicant scores used in hiring","summary":"Two job applicants filed a proposed class action on 20 January 2026 in California state court (removed to federal court on 2 March 2026) against Eightfold AI Inc. The complaint alleges that Eightfold's hiring tools collect applicant data and produce a 0-to-5 'Match Score' that employers use to rank candidates, without the notice, access and dispute rights the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a California statute require. One plaintiff says she applied to Microsoft in or around July 2025 and again in December 2025 and received an automated rejection two days after the first application. The other says she applied to PayPal in December 2025. Both say they were not interviewed or hired and believe Eightfold's tools played a role. Eightfold says it does not scrape social media and operates on data candidates or customers provide. The allegations are unproven and Eightfold filed a motion to dismiss (no ruling appears in the docket entries inspected).","incidentDate":"2025-07-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-12-17","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-01-21","aiSystem":"Eightfold AI talent-evaluation tools including the 'Match Score' applicant ranking model","aiProduct":"Eightfold Match Score","aiCompany":"Eightfold AI Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The complaint alleges that two applicants were scored by Eightfold's tools, not interviewed and not hired, and that they received none of the disclosures or dispute rights the statutes require. The plaintiffs believe the tools played a role in their rejections. Eightfold's involvement in any particular rejection is not established.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Two plaintiffs each allege they were scored and not hired. The proposed class of all US applicants evaluated with the tools is not counted because no class has been certified and no other applicant's experience is reported.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465146/gov.uscourts.cand.465146.1.0_2.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Notice of removal with the state-court complaint, plaintiffs v. Eightfold AI Inc. (N.D. Cal., filed 2 Mar 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:41.995961+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.000724+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-nsw-resilient-homes-program-applicant-data-uploaded-to-chatgpt","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Some personal information provided by people during the RHP applications process was uploaded by a former temporary employee of the RA to the AI platform, ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The data shared was contained in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with 10 columns and more than 12,000 rows of information.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The upload took place between 12 and 15 March 2025.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This incident occurred when a former temporary employee uploaded information from a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to an unauthorised third-party AI platform, ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Between 12 and 15 March 2025, personal information was uploaded by a former contractor of the RA to the Artificial Intelligence platform ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"\"Personal information was uploaded by a former contractor of the RA to the artificial intelligence platform ChatGPT,\" an RA spokesperson said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The authority said in a breach notice that the upload “was not authorised”.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Between 12 and 15 March 2025 a former temporary staff member (called a former contractor in the first notice) of the NSW Reconstruction Authority uploaded a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of Northern Rivers Resilient Homes Program information (10 columns, more than 12,000 rows) to ChatGPT; the Authority says the upload was not authorised and was not a cyber-attack.","causal_attribution":"The Authority's own notices report the upload, its dates and its unauthorised status; the ABC and iTnews relay those notices. The uploader's role is a former temporary staff member on the current page and a former contractor in the first notice and the press."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"2031 people who provided information to the RA for the RHP had some of their data uploaded to ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Name and contact details","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Residential/mailing address","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Date of birth","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Sensitive personal information","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Sensitive health information","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Limited financial commentary, but not banking or financial details","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"no driver's licence numbers, Medicare numbers, passport numbers, or Tax File Numbers were disclosed in the breach.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Up to 3000 individuals may be impacted by the breach.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"The breach shared the names and addresses of program applicants, as well as email addresses, phone numbers, and other personal and health information.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Authority says external forensic analysis confirmed that 2031 people who provided information for the program had some of their data uploaded to ChatGPT, including name and contact details, residential or mailing address, date of birth, sensitive personal and health information and limited financial commentary, and that no driver licence, Medicare, passport or Tax File Numbers were disclosed; its first notice had estimated up to 3000 people.","causal_attribution":"The Authority's statements report the count and data categories from its forensic analysis; the ABC relays the first notice's categories."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"There is no evidence that any of the uploaded data is publicly available online or has been accessed by a third party at this stage.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We believe the risk of misuse is low","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"There is no evidence that any information has been made public, however this cannot be ruled out","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Authority says there is no evidence that the uploaded data is publicly available online or has been accessed by a third party; its first notice said this could not be ruled out, and it assesses the risk of misuse as low.","causal_attribution":"The Authority's own assessment. Whether OpenAI retained, deleted or used the uploaded data is not addressed in the inspected sources."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"we are deeply sorry for the distress it may cause for those involved in the program.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I feel concerned — the information with the RA was deeply personal,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Authority apologised for the distress the breach may cause, and a program participant whose flooded home was bought back told the ABC the information held by the Authority was deeply personal and that they felt concerned.","causal_attribution":"The concern is one participant's stated reaction; the ABC does not say whether this person is among the 2031. No identity misuse or other realised loss is reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"We are working with Social Futures to reach out to people who have been impacted and ID Support NSW, a government identity and cyber security support service, to assist anyone whose data may have been compromised.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The NSW Reconstruction Authority will provide compensation for any reasonable out of pocket expenses if any compromised identity documents need to be replaced.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Authority contacted affected people with ID Support NSW and Social Futures to offer support, and said it would compensate reasonable out-of-pocket expenses if compromised identity documents needed replacing.","causal_attribution":"The Authority's statements about its response."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"We are working with Cyber Security NSW to monitor the internet and dark web to see if any of this information is accessible online. The NSW Privacy Commissioner has also been notified.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The RA has also implemented controls to block the upload of personal information into AI tools.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"An independent review into the data breach has now been completed, identifying several areas for improvement in RA’s governance, training and data security practices.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Authority notified the NSW Privacy Commissioner, had Cyber Security NSW monitor the internet and dark web, implemented controls to block the upload of personal information into AI tools, and completed an independent review that identified areas for improvement in its governance, training and data security practices.","causal_attribution":"The Authority's own account of its response; the review report itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The AI-related data breach was disclosed on what is a public holiday Monday in NSW, although it actually occurred over six months ago, between March 12 and 15.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"said she received a preliminary report about the breach in July, and the final report on Friday.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"\"I would prefer [for the RA] to advise people sooner, and I'm also informed they couldn't identify everybody, but I need to see the report first,\" she said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The breach was disclosed publicly on 6 October 2025, more than six months after the upload; the NSW Minister for Recovery told the ABC she had received a preliminary report about the breach in July and would have preferred people to be advised sooner.","causal_attribution":"iTnews's own observation of the disclosure timing and the Minister's statement to the ABC; the Authority attributes the delay to the time needed to identify affected people."}],"effects":[{"label":"personal and sensitive information of 2031 Resilient Homes Program participants was uploaded to ChatGPT without authorisation","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"a program participant reports concern about the deeply personal information held; the Authority apologised for possible distress","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nsw.gov.au/departments-and-agencies/nsw-reconstruction-authority/resilient-homes-program-data-breach","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; full body read by curl on 2026-10-11 (page last updated 26 March 2026, with the 9 December 2025 update and FAQ on the same page).","independence_group":"nsw-ra-statement"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-06/data-breach-northern-rivers-resilient-homes-program-chatgpt/105855284","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; full body read by curl on 2026-10-11. Relays the Authority statement; the participant and the Minister were interviewed separately within the same article.","independence_group":"nsw-ra-statement"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.itnews.com.au/news/nsw-gov-contractor-uploaded-excel-spreadsheet-of-flood-victims-data-to-chatgpt-620815","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; full body read by curl on 2026-10-11. Relays the Authority breach notice; the disclosure-timing observation is the outlet's own.","independence_group":"nsw-ra-statement"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.nsw.gov.au/departments-and-agencies/nsw-reconstruction-authority/media-releases/northern-rivers-resilient-homes-program-data-breach","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; full body read by curl on 2026-10-11. Authority departmental release of the first notice, 6 October 2025.","independence_group":"nsw-ra-statement"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["privacy","public_services"],"unknowns":["Why the staff member uploaded the spreadsheet and what, if anything, was asked of ChatGPT; no ChatGPT output is described.","Whether OpenAI retained, deleted or used the uploaded data for training; the sources establish the upload to the service only.","Whether any participant suffered identity misuse or other realised loss; none is reported.","Whether the uploader was a temporary staff member or a contractor (the Authority uses both terms), and how many separate uploads occurred between 12 and 15 March 2025.","The findings of the independent review beyond the Authority's summary of it."],"geography":{"basis":"The data was held by the NSW Reconstruction Authority, a New South Wales government agency, and was uploaded by a former temporary staff member of that agency; the Authority describes the incident as a breach of its program data. The ABC describes the affected people as northern NSW residents of the Northern Rivers region. No court is involved.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":["AU"]},"publication":{"basis":"The Authority's notices, read in full on 2026-10-11, state that a staff member uploaded program participants' personal and sensitive information to ChatGPT without authorisation and that forensic analysis confirmed 2031 affected people. The disclosure of their information to a generative AI service without their knowledge is the recorded privacy harm. The upload rests on the Authority's own account, which the press relayed; no retention, training, public exposure or misuse is established. The uploader and affected people are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Authority states that a former temporary staff member uploaded a spreadsheet of program information to ChatGPT between 12 and 15 March 2025, that the upload was not authorised, and that forensic analysis confirmed 2031 people had some of their data uploaded. The reported transfer of their personal and sensitive information into the generative AI service is the AI connection to the privacy harm. This establishes the upload only. It does not establish retention by OpenAI, use for training, public exposure or a finding of illegality, and no ChatGPT output affecting participants is described.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"NSW Reconstruction Authority says a former temporary staff member uploaded 2031 Resilient Homes participants' personal data to ChatGPT without authorisation","summary":"The NSW Reconstruction Authority says that between 12 and 15 March 2025 a former temporary staff member (called a former contractor in its first notice) uploaded a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of Northern Rivers Resilient Homes Program information, 10 columns and more than 12,000 rows, to ChatGPT, an AI platform the Authority had not authorised. The Authority disclosed the breach on 6 October 2025, estimating that up to 3000 people were affected, and later said external forensic analysis confirmed that 2031 people had some of their data uploaded, including names, contact details, addresses, dates of birth, sensitive personal and health information and limited financial commentary. It says no driver licence, Medicare, passport or Tax File Numbers were disclosed and that there is no evidence the data is publicly available or was accessed by a third party; whether OpenAI retained or used the data is not addressed. The Authority apologised, contacted affected people with ID Support NSW, offered to compensate the replacement of compromised identity documents and notified the NSW Privacy Commissioner. A program participant told the ABC the information was deeply personal and that they felt concerned. No misuse of the data is reported.","incidentDate":"2025-03-12","incidentEndDate":"2025-03-15","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-10-06","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used through an unauthorised upload of program data by a person working for the NSW Reconstruction Authority","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The NSW Reconstruction Authority reports that personal and sensitive information of 2031 Resilient Homes Program participants was uploaded to ChatGPT without authorisation, a loss of privacy for those people; it reports no evidence of public exposure or third-party access, and no misuse is reported (the Authority's notices and press coverage relaying them).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2031,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The Authority states that external forensic analysis confirmed 2031 people had some of their data uploaded to ChatGPT. The upload of their personal information to the AI service is itself the privacy harm recorded, so those 2031 people are counted as other people harmed. The first notice's estimate of up to 3000 is not used; the 12,000 rows are rows, not people. The participant quoted by the ABC is not separately counted because the ABC does not say whether that person is among the 2031. The uploader is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"AU-NSW","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nsw.gov.au/departments-and-agencies/nsw-reconstruction-authority/resilient-homes-program-data-breach","primarySourceLabel":"NSW Reconstruction Authority, updated 26 March 2026: Resilient Homes Program data breach","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T12:41:19.196147+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T03:10:38.11789+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2024-us-otter-notetaker-recorded-non-users-meetings-privacy-suit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'participated in a Zoom meeting in California on February'; '24, 2025, where the Otter Notetaker was used by a meeting participant to transcribe the'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in California in March 2025'; 'used Zoom to communicate with a medical professional, and'; 'Illinois on January 10, 2025 and May 19, 2025 where the Otter Notetaker was used to'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in Washington state in March'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state who'; 'participated in virtual meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their'; 'consent to record, transcribe, and store the contents of their communications.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the'; 'allegations concerning the named Plaintiff’s personal knowledge, experiences, expectations, or'","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'who alleges his privacy was \"severely invaded\" upon realizing Otter was secretly recording a confidential conversation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Seven people who were not Otter account holders allege that, on Zoom or Microsoft Teams calls (six give dates between March 2024 and May 2025), another participant used Otter Notetaker and Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations without their consent; the calls include one with a medical professional and meetings with a financial professional.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs attribute the recording to Otter's product design, which they say lets the notetaker record without every participant's consent; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'other personal information for its own commercial use, including to train its automatic speech'; 'The Illinois Plaintiffs allege that, during their virtual meetings, Otter'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter claims that before the audio of meetings is fed into its machine learning systems to help improve an AI speech recognition feature, it is \"de-identified,\"'","relation":"context","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter keeps their conversational data on its servers and uses it to train its speech-recognition and machine-learning models, and that it captured the Illinois plaintiffs' voiceprints; Otter's policy, as reported by NPR, says it trains on transcripts with users' permission and de-identifies audio.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'felt frustrated, embarrassed, and stressed to learn that his'; 'conversation was recorded without his consent, and his information, voice, and'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One California plaintiff alleges that he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn that his conversation had been recorded without his consent.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs as a consequence of Otter's recording."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ ECPA claim is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ BIPA claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'The motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend as to Count 2'; 'The motion is DENIED in all other respects.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 13 August 2026 the court denied Otter's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, holding that the alleged interception and retention of private conversations was a concrete injury, let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, and dismissed some other claims.","causal_attribution":"Procedural ruling on the pleadings; no finding that Otter recorded anyone unlawfully."}],"effects":[{"label":"the plaintiffs say Otter's notetaker recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations on calls they joined, without their consent, including a medical call and calls with a financial professional","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the plaintiffs say their conversations stay on Otter's servers for training its models and that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"one plaintiff says he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn he had been recorded","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.35.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 35, filed 5 December 2025; RECAP PDF (68 pages) read on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200), plaintiffs' experience sections read in full. Plaintiffs' allegations, not findings.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part, ECF 68, 13 August 2026 (Judge Eumi K. Lee); RECAP PDF read in full on 2026-09-29. Rules on the pleadings and accepts the allegations as true for that purpose; it makes no finding of fact.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.80.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Otter.ai's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 80, 17 September 2026; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29, plaintiff-experience paragraphs and responses read.","independence_group":"otter-answer"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Brewer v. Otter.ai, Inc., original Class Action Complaint, ECF 1, filed 15 August 2025; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.npr.org/2025/08/15/g-s1-83087/otter-ai-transcription-class-action-lawsuit","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"NPR, 15 August 2025, read live on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200). Reports the original complaint and summarises Otter's privacy policy; says neither side responded to requests for comment.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.79.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order, ECF 79, 16 September 2026; read on 2026-09-29. Procedural facts only.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","work","health","finance"],"unknowns":["Whether Otter's product notified the plaintiffs on their calls that the notetaker was present, and what the other participants' Otter settings were.","Whether the plaintiffs' conversations were in fact used to train Otter's models, and in what form.","The exact date of one Illinois plaintiff's meetings, which the complaint places only within the limitations period."],"geography":{"basis":"The consolidated complaint places the plaintiffs' calls in California, in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois, and in Washington state; the order describes the plaintiffs as individuals from California, Illinois and Washington state. The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a bounded series of concrete privacy harms reported by identified people in a pending federal suit: each named plaintiff describes a call on which another participant's AI notetaker recorded and transcribed them without consent. The account rests on the plaintiffs' pleadings and the court's ruling on them; Otter denies the allegations. Plaintiff names are omitted.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-13"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Each plaintiff alleges that another participant's Otter account joined the Otter Notetaker, an AI transcription assistant, to a Zoom or Microsoft Teams call the plaintiff was on, and that the notetaker recorded, transcribed and stored the plaintiff's conversation on Otter's servers without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent (ECF 35, the consolidated complaint; the court's 13 August 2026 order summarises the same allegation). That alleged capture of the plaintiffs' conversations by an AI service is the reported harm. The complaint also alleges that Otter used the recordings to train its speech-recognition models and took voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs. Otter admits it offers an AI meeting assistant called Otter Notetaker but says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' calls and denies the allegations. The capture is alleged, not established, so the status is reported.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"United States: seven people who say they had no Otter account allege its AI Notetaker recorded calls without consent; a judge let core privacy claims proceed","summary":"Seven people in California, Illinois and Washington state are suing Otter.ai in a consolidated class action in the Northern District of California. Each says another meeting participant used Otter's AI Notetaker on a Zoom or Microsoft Teams call they joined, and that Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversation without their consent; six of them date their calls between March 2024 and May 2025. They say they were not Otter account holders. The calls they describe include a medical consultation, meetings with a financial professional and work discussions. They allege that Otter keeps the recordings and uses them to train its speech-recognition models, that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs, and one of them says learning of the recording left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed. On 13 August 2026 the court found that the alleged interception of private conversations was a concrete injury and let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, while dismissing some claims. Otter's answer to the consolidated complaint, filed on 17 September 2026, says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' experiences and denies the allegations.","incidentDate":"2024-03-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-19","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-08-15","aiSystem":"Otter Notetaker, Otter.ai's AI meeting assistant, joined to Zoom and Microsoft Teams calls by another participant's Otter account","aiProduct":"Otter Notetaker","aiCompany":"Otter.ai, Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter recorded, transcribed and kept their private conversations on calls they joined without their consent, including medical and financial discussions, used them to train its models and took voiceprints, and one plaintiff says learning this left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed (plaintiffs' allegations in a pending suit; Otter denies them).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":7,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The court order says 'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state' who participated in meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their consent; each describes their own call in the consolidated complaint. They were not Otter account holders (one says only that to her knowledge she did not create an account), so they are counted as other people. The proposed class members are not counted. Documented minimum 7.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Order granting motion to dismiss in part, In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, No. 5:25-cv-06911-EKL (N.D. Cal.), 13 August 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:04:08.493618+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:43.76525+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["otter-ai","ai-notetaker","meeting-transcription","privacy","wiretap","bipa","voiceprint","training-data","class-action","non-user"]}]}