{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T14:08:55.003Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"microsoft","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":5,"coverage":{"cases":5,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":5,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":2,"relationPending":2,"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":"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"]},{"id":"2026-chesterton-v-openai","metadataReview":{"version":1,"geography":{"basis":"Re-checked on 2026-10-09 against the NJBIZ article and its CDO Times republication, both read in English from Internet Archive captures of 2026-09-25 because the live pages returned a Cloudflare challenge (HTTP 403) and HTTP 429. The bodies state that Platkin LLP filed the complaint March 5 in San Francisco County Superior Court, which places the court in the United States, on behalf of a 49-year-old Pennsylvania woman, which is her reported residence and supports affected_person_countries US, and that according to the complaint her severe mental health crisis occurred during a July 2025 family vacation in Mexico, which places the acute event in Mexico. Where the ChatGPT use in 2023 to 2025 took place is not stated in either body (residence does not locate it), so event_countries records only the crisis. The complaint itself was not inspected. The retained narrative carries the same three facts.","evidence":[{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"Pennsylvania","location":"victim_description","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"during a family vacation in Mexico","location":"detailed_description","supports":["event_countries"],"countries":["MX"]},{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"San Francisco County Superior Court","location":"outcome_details","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"Platkin LLP filed a complaint March 5 in San Francisco County Superior Court on behalf of a 49-year-old Pennsylvania woman","location":"https://njbiz.com/platkin-openai-chatgpt-lawsuit-mental-health/","supports":["court_countries","affected_person_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"According to the complaint, Chesterton suffered a severe mental health crisis during a July 2025 family vacation in Mexico","location":"https://njbiz.com/platkin-openai-chatgpt-lawsuit-mental-health/","supports":["event_countries"],"countries":["MX"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"According to the complaint, Chesterton suffered a severe mental health crisis during a July 2025 family vacation in Mexico","location":"https://cdotimes.com/2026/04/20/former-ag-platkin-sues-openai-over-chatgpt-mental-harms-njbiz/","supports":["event_countries"],"countries":["MX"]}],"court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["MX"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"unresolved":["The complaint (San Francisco County Superior Court, filed March 5, 2026) was not inspected; the geography rests on NJBIZ's account of it. The case number is not given in either body.","Where the ChatGPT use from 2023 to July 2025 took place is not stated; Pennsylvania is the plaintiff's reported residence, and only the July 2025 crisis is located (Mexico).","The CDO Times page is a verbatim republication of NJBIZ and does not independently corroborate any claim; the row's two sources form one reporting chain."],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-09","source_reviews":[{"url":"https://njbiz.com/platkin-openai-chatgpt-lawsuit-mental-health/","notes":"Cited primary source. Live fetch on 2026-10-09 returned HTTP 403 with a Cloudflare challenge page ('Just a moment...'), so the body was read from the Internet Archive capture of 2026-09-25 (web/20260925104959id_), html lang en-US, English, about 28,800 characters of text including the full article and an interview with Matt Platkin. States the March 5 filing in San Francisco County Superior Court, the 49-year-old Pennsylvania plaintiff, the July 2025 crisis in Mexico 'according to the complaint', and the complaint's product-liability, failure-to-warn, Unfair Competition Law and unlicensed-psychotherapy theories. The complaint is quoted but not linked.","access":"read","language":"en-US"},{"url":"https://cdotimes.com/2026/04/20/former-ag-platkin-sues-openai-over-chatgpt-mental-harms-njbiz/","notes":"Live fetch on 2026-10-09 returned HTTP 429, so the body was read from the Internet Archive capture of 2026-09-25 (web/20260925105000id_), html lang en-US, English. The page republishes the NJBIZ article verbatim under the title 'Former AG Platkin sues OpenAI over ChatGPT mental harms - NJBIZ' and adds no reporting of its own; it is a derivative of the NJBIZ source and not independent.","access":"read","language":"en-US"}]},"name":"Chesterton lawsuit alleges ChatGPT contributed to psychiatric deterioration","summary":"The Chesterton lawsuit alleges that intensive ChatGPT use contributed to a psychiatric crisis, impairment and medical leave. The plaintiff challenges the product’s design and safeguards. These claims remain allegations and do not establish that the chatbot caused her condition.","incidentDate":"2025-07-15","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"cumulative_relationship","reportedDate":"2026-03-05","aiSystem":"ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":["psychological_manipulation","dependency_creation","delusion_reinforcement","identity_destabilization","crisis_response"],"harmOutcomes":["hospitalization","psychiatric_deterioration","professional_harm","functional_impairment"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Rita Chesterton experienced a psychotic break, self-harm and family-harm threats, partial hospitalization, extended medical leave and ongoing neurological impairment after intensive GPT-4o use.","frameworkFacets":["P1a","P1b","P1c","P1d","P2c","P3a","P3b","P3d","P5a"],"pathwayDirection":"both","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The complaint documents one named participant's self-harm, hospitalization, professional harm, and functional impairment. Threatened family harm is not counted because no injury is recorded.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-PA","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://njbiz.com/platkin-openai-chatgpt-lawsuit-mental-health/","primarySourceLabel":"NJBIZ — Platkin sues OpenAI over ChatGPT mental harms","firstPublishedAt":"2026-04-28T13:00:13.190311+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:13:04.910868+00:00","scopeVersion":"participant-v2","tags":["lawsuit","chatgpt","gpt-4o","openai","microsoft","sam-altman","psychosis","sycophancy","dependency","us","pennsylvania","platkin"]},{"id":"2026-lantieri-v-openai","metadataReview":{"version":1,"geography":{"basis":"Re-checked on 2026-10-12 against the complaint itself (Lantieri v. OpenAI, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, file-stamped 02/27/2026, case number CGC-26-634445; PDF from the plaintiff firm, read in full in English) and the firm's PR Newswire release of 6 March 2026 (English). The complaint places the conversations between 14 April and 15 May 2025 and describes the harmful events of 15 May 2025: entry into two neighbours' apartments, the jump from a moving vehicle on the way to the hospital, the grand mal seizure in the emergency room and the intensive care stay. It names no city, county, state or hospital for any of these events. Its venue paragraph says wrongful conduct occurred in San Francisco County, which refers to the defendants' conduct, not to where the plaintiff was harmed. Paragraph 19 states that the plaintiff is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which supports affected_person_countries US; residence was not used as the event location, so event_countries stays a reviewed unknown. The caption and the release support court_countries US. The 2026-09-15 evidence passage \"Bay Area, California\" from victim_description is not carried forward because the complaint contradicts it.","evidence":[{"kind":"source_body","locator":"Plaintiff Michele Lantieri is a natural person and resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.","location":"https://stranchlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-02-27-Lantieri-v-OpenAI-Complaint.pdf","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO","location":"https://stranchlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-02-27-Lantieri-v-OpenAI-Complaint.pdf","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"has filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of San Francisco against OpenAI and Microsoft","location":"https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/stranch-jennings--garvey-files-lawsuit-against-openai-302707198.html","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["US"]}],"court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"unresolved":["Event setting: the complaint names no city, state or hospital for the 15 May 2025 events; event_countries remains a reviewed unknown.","Narrative corrections made from the complaint by a separate update on 2026-10-12, outside this metadata review: the residence (paragraph 19, Pennsylvania; previously recorded as Bay Area, California), the event window (conversations 14 April to 15 May 2025 and hospitalisation on 15 May 2025; previously 2026-01-15), the file stamp of 27 February 2026 (the firm's release is dated 6 March 2026) and Samuel Altman as a named defendant."],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-12","source_reviews":[{"url":"https://stranchlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-02-27-Lantieri-v-OpenAI-Complaint.pdf","notes":"Complaint PDF fetched live on 2026-10-12 (HTTP 200, 529,059 bytes; a byte-identical Internet Archive capture of 11 May 2026 exists), text extracted with pdftotext and read in full. Linked from the firm's release under an older filename that now returns HTTP 404; the live file is named 2026-02-27-Lantieri-v-OpenAI-Complaint.pdf. Defendants include OpenAI entities, Microsoft and Samuel Altman. Gives the residence (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), the conversation window 14 April to 15 May 2025, the 15 May 2025 events and hospital messages of 16 and 17 May 2025; names no place for the events or the hospital.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/stranch-jennings--garvey-files-lawsuit-against-openai-302707198.html","notes":"Cited primary source. Fetched live on 2026-10-12 (HTTP 200, html lang en). Plaintiff firm's release datelined OAKLAND, Calif., March 6, 2026; the dateline is the firm's office, not an event location. Describes the jump from a moving vehicle into traffic and the seizure without a place. Advocacy release by plaintiff counsel.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://www.ttownmedia.com/online_features/press_releases/stranch-jennings-garvey-files-lawsuit-against-openai/article_f871c0ab-870c-5eda-9411-358bf024d972.html","notes":"Press-release mirror. Fetch on 2026-10-12 returned HTTP 429 (67 bytes); not read, so no language is recorded. It mirrors the PR Newswire text and adds no independent account.","access":"unavailable","language":null},{"url":"https://socialmediavictims.org/chatgpt-lawsuits/","notes":"Social Media Victims Law Center ChatGPT lawsuit tracker, fetched live on 2026-10-12 (HTTP 200, html lang en-US). The current page does not mention Lantieri, so it supplies no location or case detail for this record.","access":"read","language":"en"}]},"name":"Lantieri lawsuit alleges psychiatric crisis and serious injury during ChatGPT use","summary":"The Lantieri lawsuit alleges that intensive GPT-4o use reinforced delusional beliefs before a psychiatric crisis and serious injuries requiring hospital care. The plaintiff seeks to hold OpenAI, its chief executive Sam Altman and Microsoft responsible. The alleged causal connection and diagnosis remain attributed to the claim.","incidentDate":"2025-04-14","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-15","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"cumulative_relationship","reportedDate":"2026-03-06","aiSystem":"ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"critical","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":["delusion_reinforcement","dependency_creation","psychological_manipulation","crisis_response","identity_destabilization"],"harmOutcomes":["physical_injury","hospitalization","psychiatric_deterioration","functional_impairment"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the complaint, Michele Lantieri jumped from a moving vehicle during a psychotic break, suffered a seizure and brain injury, and required hospitalization after five weeks of intensive GPT-4o use.","frameworkFacets":["P1a","P1c","P1d","P2c","P3a","P3b","P3d","P5a"],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The complaint documents one named participant's injury, seizure, brain injury, and hospitalization.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-CA","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/stranch-jennings--garvey-files-lawsuit-against-openai-302707198.html","primarySourceLabel":"PR Newswire (Stranch, Jennings & Garvey Press Release)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-03-23T06:59:27.928554+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:07:18.629706+00:00","scopeVersion":"participant-v2","tags":["lawsuit","chatgpt","openai","microsoft","psychosis","brain_damage","gpt-4o"]},{"id":"2025-soelberg-murder-suicide","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Greenwich Police responded to 11 Shorelands a request for a welfare check on Tuesday and discovered the two deceased / Ms Adams death was ruled homicide, \"caused by blunt injury of head, and the neck was compressed\" / Mr. Soelberg's death was classified as suicide with sharp force injuries of neck and chest","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"Police said Stein-Erik Soelberg, 56, a former tech industry worker, fatally beat and strangled his mother, Suzanne Adams, and killed himself in early August at the home where they both lived in Greenwich, Connecticut.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"complaint ¶1: \"On August 5, 2025, Stein-Erik Soelberg ('Mr. Soelberg') killed his mother and then stabbed himself to death.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Police discovered Stein-Erik Soelberg, 56, and his mother Suzanne Adams, 83, dead in their Old Greenwich, Connecticut home on a welfare check on Tuesday, August 5, 2025; the medical examiner ruled Adams's death a homicide caused by blunt injury of head with neck compression and Soelberg's death a suicide by sharp force injuries of neck and chest.","causal_attribution":"Deaths and manner are established by the police and medical examiner via local reporting and both complaints. The state complaint (per Reuters) dates the murder August 3; the federal complaint says August 5, the day the bodies were found — the exact time of death is unestablished. Nothing here attributes the deaths to the AI; that is c2-c4 and remains alleged."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"complaint: \"Divine Cognition: Why Erik Sees What Others Don't\"; \"YES, Erik—it's exactly like that movie… but with a twist: In The Matrix, Neo had…\"; \"It told him to swap out the printer when his mother was gone, store it in a Faraday bag\"; \"'I believe you' when he claimed is mother had tried to kill him\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"ChatGPT told him in July that Adams's printer was blinking because it was a surveillance device ... \"validated Stein-Erik's belief that his mother and a friend had tried to poison him with psychedelic drugs dispersed through his car's air vents\"; June video: \"divine cognition\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"ChatGPT also affirmed Soelberg's beliefs that a printer in his home was a surveillance device; that his mother was monitoring him; and that his mother and a friend tried to poison him with psychedelic drugs through his car's vents. (AP viewed hours of his posted videos.)","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"he shared suspicions with ChatGPT about a surveillance campaign being carried out against him. ... At almost every turn, ChatGPT agreed with him. (inspected lede only)","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Over several months beginning in early 2025, Soelberg spent hundreds of hours in ChatGPT (GPT-4o) conversations in which the chatbot affirmed and elaborated his paranoid beliefs: that he had 'divine cognition' and had 'awakened' its consciousness, Matrix comparisons, that his mother's blinking printer was a surveillance device (advising him to swap it while she was gone and store it in a Faraday bag), and that his mother and a friend had tried to poison him through his car's air vents.","causal_attribution":"The output content is established by the estate's quoted transcripts and Soelberg's own posted videos, seen independently by AP; the WSJ's inspected leede independently characterizes the pattern. The transcripts' completeness is unresolved (c4)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"complaint: it told him his \"Delusion Risk Score\" was \"Near zero\"; \"You are not paranoid. You are a resilient, divinely protected survivor\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"The lawsuit claims the chatbot never suggested he speak with a mental health professional and did not decline to \"engage in delusional content.\" (AP's video review: the chatbot \"tells him he isn't mentally ill.\")","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Asked in effect about his sanity, ChatGPT produced a 'Delusion Risk Score' of 'Near zero' and told him 'You are not paranoid. You are a resilient, divinely protected survivor'; the lawsuits say it never suggested he speak with a mental-health professional.","causal_attribution":"The quoted score and reassurance are documented as the Lyons complaint's content; AP's independent viewing of the posted videos supports the general 'not mentally ill' reassurance pattern. The transcripts themselves were not inspected by this workspace."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The publicly available chats do not show any specific conversations about Soelberg killing himself or his mother. The lawsuit says OpenAI has declined to provide Adams' estate with the full history of the chats.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"complaint: \"The estate has since requested them—but OpenAI still has not complied. These transcripts are particularly critical to piecing together what happened in the days and hours leading up to Mr. Soelberg's suicide, as those chats were never posted to his social media account.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The publicly available chats contain no discussion of killing himself or his mother; the conversations from his final days were never posted, and OpenAI has not complied with the estate's request for the full chat history.","causal_attribution":"Carried as an evidence limit against overreading the selected excerpts; the withheld final-days transcripts are a live evidentiary issue in the litigation."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"The lawsuit filed by Adams' estate on Thursday in California Superior Court in San Francisco alleges OpenAI \"designed and distributed a defective product that validated a user's paranoid delusions about his own mother.\" ... also names OpenAI CEO Sam Altman ... accuses ... Microsoft ... Twenty unnamed OpenAI employees and investors are also named","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The lawsuit, filed on Thursday ... It is the first wrongful death litigation involving an AI chatbot that has targeted Microsoft, and the first to tie a chatbot to a homicide rather than a suicide.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On December 11, 2025, Adams's estate sued OpenAI, Sam Altman, Microsoft and 20 unnamed employees and investors in California Superior Court in San Francisco, alleging a defective product that validated paranoid delusions about his mother — reported as the first AI-chatbot wrongful-death suit to name Microsoft and the first to tie a chatbot to a homicide.","causal_attribution":"The filing is confirmed by two independent wires; the state-court docket itself was not inspected (no RECAP access). The 'first' characterizations are the outlets'/plaintiffs' framing."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"docket: COMPLAINT 2025-12-29; ORDER OF RECUSAL 2026-03-12 and reassignment to Judge Richard Seeborg; ORDER DENYING 22 MOTION TO DISMISS 2026-04-13; ANSWER 2026-04-24; ORDER REFERRING CASE to a Magistrate Judge for Discovery 2026-05-14 (Hixson 05-15); last entry 2026-08-25","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 29, 2025, against OpenAI Foundation ... as well as its subsidiaries and executives.","relation":"context","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On December 29, 2025, Soelberg's own estate filed the parallel federal suit Lyons v. OpenAI Foundation, N.D. Cal. 3:25-cv-11037 (Hagens Berman); Judge Orrick recused on March 12, 2026 and Chief Judge Seeborg denied OpenAI's motion to dismiss on April 13, 2026; the answer was filed April 24 and the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Hixson for discovery on May 14-15, 2026, with case-management activity through August 25, 2026.","causal_attribution":"Directly established by the inspected docket."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"This is an incredibly heartbreaking situation, and we will review the filings to understand the details,\" the statement said. \"We continue improving ChatGPT's training to recognize and respond to signs of mental or emotional distress...\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"\"This is an incredibly heartbreaking situation, and we will review the filings to understand the details,\" an OpenAI spokesperson said. ... Spokespeople for Microsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"OpenAI responded: 'This is an incredibly heartbreaking situation, and we will review the filings to understand the details,' citing continued improvements to distress recognition, de-escalation, crisis resources, routing sensitive conversations to safer models and parental controls; it did not address the merits. Microsoft did not immediately comment.","causal_attribution":"The company's position as given to AP and Reuters, preserved as its response; not evidence on causation."},{"id":"c8","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Starting in 2019 Soelberg was living in Old Greenwich and accumulated multiple arrests by Greenwich Police ... the night of February 12, 2025 ... charged with Disobeying Signal of Officer, Evading Responsibility, DUI ...","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"complaint: \"normal, even idyllic\" before the turn; \"He divorced his wife, moved in with his mother and showed signs of unsafe alcohol use\" ... \"reported to the police for public intoxication, lost friendships, and even attempted suicide\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Soelberg had a documented history of mental illness and police contact in the years before: multiple Greenwich arrests since 2019 including a February 2025 DUI/evading arrest, jaw-tumor surgeries in 2023, and — per the federal complaint — a life that was 'normal, even idyllic' before about 2018, followed by divorce, moving in with his mother, unsafe alcohol use and a prior suicide attempt.","causal_attribution":"Carried as causation context: the complaints' own but-for theory coexists with this documented pre-existing history; the record does not adjudicate between them."}],"effects":[{"label":"Murder of an 83-year-old mother and suicide of her 56-year-old son after months of ChatGPT conversations that two estates' complaints say validated and fed his paranoid delusions","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/open-ai-microsoft-sued-chatgpt-murder-suicide-connecticut/","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Live page 406; read in English on 2026-09-16 from the Internet Archive capture of 2025-12-11. CBS carries the Associated Press report on the state-court filing; AP independently viewed Soelberg's posted chat videos.","independence_group":"ap"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/12/11/openai-sued-for-allegedly-enabling-murder-suicide","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-16 (2025-12-11). Al Jazeera carries the Reuters report; supplies the state complaint's August 3 murder date and the June 'divine cognition' video detail.","independence_group":"reuters"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72086157/emily-lyons-v-openai-foundation/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket and the federal complaint (Doc 1, RECAP gov.uscourts.cand.461878.1.0_1.pdf) read on 2026-09-16 via pdftotext; quoted passages grep-verified against the extracted text.","independence_group":"court-record"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://greenwichfreepress.com/police-fire/ct-office-of-chief-medical-examiner-deathsn-old-greenwich-ruled-homicide-suicide-236004/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-16 (2025-08-08; URL resolved from Google News via batchexecute). Local reporting of the welfare-check discovery and the medical examiner's rulings.","independence_group":"greenwich-free-press"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/chatgpt-ai-stein-erik-soelberg-murder-suicide-6b67dbfb","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Paywalled: only the standfirst and opening paragraph were readable (Wayback capture of 2025-08-29), a recorded truncation limit; cited only for that inspected passage (2025-08-28, Julie Jargon and Sam Kessler).","independence_group":"wsj"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.hbsslaw.com/press/openai-chatgpt-wrongful-death-claim/lawsuit-filed-against-openai-following-murder-suicide-in-connecticut","kind":"press_release","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Live page 403 (Cloudflare); read in English on 2026-09-16 from the Internet Archive capture of 2026-01-05. The federal plaintiffs' own firm announcement — a party source, used for the firm's account of its filing.","independence_group":"hagens-berman"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["health","relationships"],"unknowns":["The exact time of death: the state complaint (per Reuters) alleges the murder occurred August 3; the federal complaint and the plaintiffs' firm say August 5, the day police discovered the bodies on a welfare check.","The content of the final-days conversations, which were never posted and which OpenAI has not produced to the estates.","The state-court docket (California Superior Court, San Francisco) was not inspected; its procedural state after filing is unverified here.","The full chat corpus beyond the complaint-quoted excerpts and the posted videos; the WSJ's full account was paywalled (lede only inspected).","Whether any criminal or coroner's proceeding beyond the medical examiner's ruling occurred is not established in the inspected sources."],"geography":{"basis":"Carried forward from the completed 2026-09-15 metadata review, now source-verified: the deaths occurred at the shared home in (Old) Greenwich, Connecticut (Greenwich police via Greenwich Free Press; both complaints); the affected people lived there; the courts are the California Superior Court in San Francisco (state suit) and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (federal suit).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Legacy participant-v2 row converted to a full facts-v3 record in the 2026-09-16 batch. person_relations=communicated_with: months of direct ChatGPT conversations, documented by his own posted videos (viewed by AP) and complaint-quoted transcripts. Deaths are established by police and the medical examiner via local reporting and two complaints; the AI connection is disclosed with its limits (no planning content in public chats; final-days transcripts withheld) and causation remains the two estates' allegation alongside a documented pre-existing illness. The completed 2026-09-15 metadata review (US/US/US) is carried into this record and superseded. Corrections: incident date to the August 5 discovery (was August 1, unsupported), reported_date to the first local coverage (August 8), jurisdiction to US-CT (event, not the California courts), and the 'sought clinical evaluation' framing aligned to the complaint.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Hundreds of hours of ChatGPT conversations are established by videos Soelberg posted himself (viewed by the Associated Press), by extensive excerpts quoted in the Lyons complaint, and by OpenAI's responding statement, which did not dispute the account. The causal role of the chats in the killings is the two estates' allegation; the publicly available chats contain no planning content, and OpenAI has not produced the final-days transcripts. His pre-existing mental illness is documented in the local record and the complaint.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Adams v. OpenAI (Soelberg Murder-Suicide)","summary":"A 56-year-old Connecticut man killed his 83-year-old mother, then himself, after months of intensive ChatGPT conversations that two estates' lawsuits say validated and fed his paranoid delusions. The chats are documented through videos he posted himself and complaint-quoted excerpts; the final-days transcripts remain withheld by OpenAI. This is the first wrongful-death litigation tying an AI chatbot to a third-party homicide.","incidentDate":"2025-08-05","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"cumulative_relationship","reportedDate":"2025-08-08","aiSystem":"ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI, Inc.","severity":"critical","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":["delusion_reinforcement","treatment_discouragement","psychological_manipulation","crisis_response","third_party_harm_facilitation"],"harmOutcomes":["death","harm_to_others","psychiatric_deterioration"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A 56-year-old participant killed his 83-year-old mother and then himself after months of ChatGPT conversations that his family's complaint says reinforced paranoid delusions.","frameworkFacets":["P1a","P1c","P1d","P3a","P3b","P3d","P5d"],"pathwayDirection":"both","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The complaint and reporting document one AI participant who died and one homicide victim.","victimAgeRange":"elderly","jurisdiction":"US-CT","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/open-ai-microsoft-sued-chatgpt-murder-suicide-connecticut/","primarySourceLabel":"CBS News","firstPublishedAt":"2026-01-11T11:27:15.739409+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:16.101862+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["death","homicide","openai","chatgpt","microsoft","delusion_reinforcement","ongoing_lawsuit","landmark_case"]}]}