{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-12T07:09:33.341Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"para","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":13,"coverage":{"cases":13,"countries":5,"languages":4,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":4,"regulatory":1,"minors":1,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":13,"mixedRelations":2,"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-quebec-appeal-court-costs-self-represented-appellant-ai-drafted-filings-nonexistent-judgments","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Elle réclame aussi 10 000 $ en dommages-intérêts'; 'références juridiques inexistantes générées par l’intelligence artificielle dans ses actes de procédure'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The respondent asked the Court of Appeal for $10,000 in damages, alleging that the appellant had included non-existent legal references generated by artificial intelligence in his filings.","causal_attribution":"The decision documents that the respondent made this request; the allegation is hers."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'parce qu’il a utilisé l’intelligence artificielle pour la rédaction'; 'déclaration d’appel et de son exposé, qui comportent deux références à des arrêts inexistants et une référence inexacte quant à un paragraphe cité'; 'L’appelant a contrevenu à cet Avis de la Juge en chef'; 'une forme de négligence plutôt que de la mauvaise foi'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Ruling on the respondent's request, the court described the appellant's notice of appeal and brief as written with artificial intelligence and as containing two references to non-existent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph, and found that he had breached the Chief Justice's notice on AI use through negligence rather than bad faith.","causal_attribution":"Finding stated in the Court of Appeal decision of 1 October 2026; the decision does not name the tool."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'une telle connaissance de la part de l’appelant n’a pas été démontrée'; 'il y a lieu de le condamner aux frais de justice en vertu de l’article 340 C.p.c.'; 'en matière familiale, de chacune'; 'REJETTE la demande visant à sanctionner un manquement au déroulement'; 'LE TOUT, avec les frais de justice en faveur de l’intimée.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Because knowledge of the invented references was not shown, the court rejected the separate monetary sanction but ordered court costs against the appellant under article 340 C.p.c. to sanction the conduct.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the decision; the costs are the court's response to the AI-drafted filings."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'ACCUEILLE en partie l’appel'; 'peine de 100 heures de travail d’utilité sociale'; 'une mesure coercitive d’emprisonnement de 30 jours'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On the merits the court partly allowed the appeal for reasons unrelated to AI and reduced the contempt penalty to 100 hours of community work and 30 days of coercive imprisonment.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the decision; the contempt arose from non-compliance with family-court orders, not from AI use."}],"effects":[{"label":"a self-represented appellant was ordered to pay court costs because his AI-drafted appeal filings cited non-existent judgments","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3266/Droit-de-la-famille-261553-2026-QCCA-1300.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read in full in French by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 from the copy of the decision hosted by the AI Hallucination Cases database (PDF, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator or reviewer was involved. The locators quote the French original.","independence_group":"qcca-2026-qcca-1300-decision"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the appellant used and what it produced beyond the two non-existent judgments and the inaccurate paragraph reference.","The amount of the court costs ordered against the appellant.","Whether the appellant has complied with the underlying orders or served the coercive imprisonment."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal was heard and decided by the Quebec Court of Appeal from a Quebec Superior Court judgment (decision caption and paragraph 1), and the filings were made in that court. The decision states no residence for the appellant, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["CA"],"event_countries":["CA"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the court's own decision: the Quebec Court of Appeal described a self-represented appellant's appeal filings as written with AI and as citing non-existent judgments, held that he had breached its AI notice and ordered costs against him. The facts are documented by the decision; the appellant is a private party in a family matter and is not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Ruling on the respondent's request (paragraph 28), the Quebec Court of Appeal decision describes the appellant's notice of appeal and brief as written with artificial intelligence and as containing two references to non-existent judgments and an inaccurate paragraph reference. The court treated that AI drafting and those references as established: it held that he had breached its AI notice (paragraph 30), contrasted his lack of shown knowledge of the hallucinations with an earlier case (paragraphs 31-32) and ordered costs against him for that reason. The AI output reached him as drafted text he filed (communicated_with) and informed the court's costs decision about him (informed_decision_about). The decision does not identify the tool or quote its output.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Quebec Court of Appeal orders costs against a self-represented appellant whose AI-drafted filings cited two non-existent judgments (1 Oct 2026)","summary":"On 1 October 2026 the Quebec Court of Appeal ordered court costs against a self-represented appellant in a family-law contempt appeal as a sanction for appeal filings that, in the court's description, he had written with artificial intelligence and that contained two references to non-existent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph. The court held that AI may be used to draft appeal filings only if the litigant verifies the authorities, found that he had breached the Chief Justice's notice on AI use, and described his conduct as negligence rather than bad faith. It rejected the respondent's request for a separate $10,000 sanction and, for reasons unrelated to AI, reduced the contempt penalty imposed at first instance. The decision does not name the AI tool.","incidentDate":"2025-12-15","incidentEndDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-01","aiSystem":"Artificial intelligence, not identified in the decision, which the self-represented appellant used to draft his notice of appeal and brief","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Quebec Court of Appeal ordered court costs against the self-represented appellant as a sanction for filings he drafted with AI that cited non-existent judgments, holding that he breached the court's AI notice through negligence (2026 QCCA 1300, 1 October 2026). The amount of the costs is not stated.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used AI to draft the filings and against whom costs were ordered. The respondent and other family members are not counted as harmed by the AI-related sanction.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3266/Droit-de-la-famille-261553-2026-QCCA-1300.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Quebec Court of Appeal, Droit de la famille — 261553, 2026 QCCA 1300, 1 October 2026 (copy hosted by the AI Hallucination Cases database)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:20.356128+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:20.356128+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated_citations","courts","self_represented_litigant","costs_order","family_law","canada","quebec"]},{"id":"2026-arizona-federal-court-dismisses-apparently-ai-generated-workplace-complaint-bars-ai-drafting","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The complaint appears to have been generated'; 'by artificial intelligence (“AI”) as it resembles other AI-generated complaints the court has'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court stated that the complaint appears to have been generated by artificial intelligence because it resembles other AI-generated complaints the court has encountered.","causal_attribution":"Statement in the court's order of 6 October 2026; the order records an appearance, not an admission or a finding of who drafted the complaint."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'complaint qualifies as a forbidden “shotgun pleading.”'; 'is prohibited from using AI to draft her'; 'IT IS ORDERED the complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. No later than October'; '19, 2026, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint of no more than 25 pages that is not'; 'drafted using AI tools. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal with'; 'prejudice in the event no amended complaint is filed by that date.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court dismissed the complaint as a shotgun pleading, granted leave to file an amended complaint of no more than 25 pages by 19 October 2026, prohibited the plaintiff from using AI to draft it and directed entry of a judgment of dismissal with prejudice if none is filed.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the court's order; the AI-drafting prohibition is the court's response to the complaint's apparent AI origin."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'filed a 67-page complaint that'; 'includes 199 separate paragraphs.'; 'brings this action principally under Title'; 'claim as one for “hostile work environment.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint, filed on 11 September 2026, ran to 67 pages and 199 paragraphs and was brought principally under Title VII's anti-retaliation provision, while also describing a hostile work environment claim.","causal_attribution":"Description of the complaint in the court's order."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'with filings in this matter must attach to the subject filing a separate declaration disclosing'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order also sets the judge's standing requirement that any party using generative AI in filings attach a declaration disclosing that use and certifying personal review of the filing.","causal_attribution":"Case-management requirement stated in the order; context, applies to all parties."}],"effects":[{"label":"workplace complaint dismissed and the plaintiff barred from using AI to draft the amended complaint","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1517524/gov.uscourts.azd.1517524.6.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 from the RECAP copy of the order (text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the order. HTTP 200.","independence_group":"d-ariz-cv-26-08218-order-doc-6"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Whether the plaintiff or anyone else used an AI tool to draft the complaint, and which tool; the order states only that the complaint appears AI-generated.","Whether the plaintiff is self-represented; the order does not say.","The plaintiff's employer and workplace; the order names only the defendant and does not describe the employment.","Whether an amended complaint will be filed by 19 October 2026 and what follows."],"geography":{"basis":"The event is the filing and dismissal of the complaint in the US District Court for the District of Arizona (order caption and text), so the filing and the court's decision took place in the US. The order gives no residence or workplace location for the plaintiff, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a consequential-response case on the court's own order: a federal judge in Arizona dismissed a workplace complaint that the court said appeared to be AI-generated and barred the plaintiff from using AI to draft the amended complaint. The dismissal and the prohibition are documented by the order; the AI origin is the court's stated appearance, recorded as suspected. The plaintiff is a private party and is not named in the public text.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The reported harm is the court's response to the complaint's apparent AI origin. The order states that the complaint 'appears to have been generated by artificial intelligence' because it resembles other AI-generated complaints the court has encountered, dismisses it for the defects the court describes (voluminous, repetitive allegations, shifting claims, discussions of law and missing exhibits) and prohibits the plaintiff from using AI to draft the amended complaint. The apparently AI-generated text informed the court's decision about the plaintiff (informed_decision_about): the court read the complaint, attributed its form to AI, dismissed it and imposed an AI-specific drafting restriction. The court's attribution rests on its comparison with other complaints; no admission, tool or drafter is identified, so the status is suspected.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Arizona federal court dismisses a Title VII complaint it says appears AI-generated and bars the plaintiff from using AI to draft the amended complaint","summary":"On 6 October 2026 a judge of the US District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed a 67-page, 199-paragraph workplace complaint filed on 11 September 2026, saying it appeared to have been generated by artificial intelligence because it resembled other AI-generated complaints the court had encountered. The court dismissed it as a shotgun pleading that did not give the defendant or the court sufficient notice of the claims, which it said shifted between Title VII retaliation, hostile work environment and retaliatory hostile work environment. It granted leave to file an amended complaint of no more than 25 pages by 19 October 2026, prohibited the plaintiff from using AI to draft it and directed entry of a judgment of dismissal with prejudice if no amended complaint is filed. The order does not establish who drafted the complaint or name any AI tool.","incidentDate":"2026-10-06","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-09","aiSystem":"Unidentified generative AI tool that the court said the complaint appeared to have been generated by; no tool is named and the plaintiff's use is not established in the order","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiff's employment complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and the court barred the plaintiff from using AI to draft the amended complaint, which must be filed by 19 October 2026 in no more than 25 pages or the case will be dismissed with prejudice (D. Ariz. order, 6 October 2026). The court said the complaint appeared to be AI-generated; the order does not establish who drafted it.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the plaintiff whose complaint was dismissed and who was barred from using AI to draft the amended complaint. Counted outside direct AI users because the order says only that the complaint appears to have been generated by AI and does not establish who drafted it. The defendant is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1517524/gov.uscourts.azd.1517524.6.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court, D. Ariz., No. CV-26-08218-PCT-KML, order (Doc. 6) signed 6 Oct 2026, filed 7 Oct 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:12:35.558091+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:12:35.558091+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["apparent_ai_generated_filing","courts","dismissal","federal_court","employment","united_states","arizona"]},{"id":"2025-alsace-franchise-recruiter-chatgpt-cv-filter-age-sex-origin-criteria-ex-employees-allege","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'quelque 740.000 CV de commerciaux. Chiffre ensuite ramené à 130.000 en seulement cinq jours, grâce à ChatGTP, après application de filtres discriminants, raconte un autre ex-salarié.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A former employee says the company collected about 740,000 sales CVs from job platforms in spring 2025 and reduced them to 130,000 in five days with ChatGPT after applying discriminatory filters.","causal_attribution":"A former employee's account relayed by AFP."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'et à exclure les moins de 27 ans.' and 'il faut (que) le nom de famille du candidat ne SOIT PAS d' and 'un motif de rejet figure en face de chaque nom: \"Hors cible - trop jeune\", ou encore \"Trop âgé\". Les femmes, repérées à leur prénom, sont renvoyées à leurs chères études avec la mention \"Exception\".'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'un motif de rejet figure en face de chaque nom'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"AFP consulted the prompt, which told the AI to exclude candidates over 55 or under 27 and those whose surname was of African origin, and a results table assigning a rejection reason to each name, with women marked \"Exception\".","causal_attribution":"Documents described by AFP; the record does not reproduce them and AFP does not say how many candidates the table covers."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'tous les commerciaux retenus ont le même profil: blanc, dans la quarantaine'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A former employee said all the sales agents retained had the same profile, white and in their forties.","causal_attribution":"A former employee's statement."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'contenait des développements contraires à notre cahier des charges et aux consignes de la direction' and 'a jamais été mise en service et n' and 'a servi à évaluer aucun candidat'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The company denies asking anyone to build discriminatory criteria into its tools; it says a version containing developments contrary to its specifications was never put into service, evaluated no candidate and was built by a since-dismissed former employee.","causal_attribution":"The company's statement to AFP, recorded as contrary evidence."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Le troisième affirme avoir saisi la Commission nationale de l' and 'ainsi que le défenseur des droits' and 'a indiqué ne pas pouvoir communiquer sur un cas individuel.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One former employee says he has referred the matter to the CNIL and the Défenseur des droits; the CNIL said it could not comment on an individual case.","causal_attribution":"Former employee's statement and the CNIL response, via AFP."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Plus que pro a trié des milliers de CV sur des critères de genre et d' and 'entre 2023 et 2026, Plus que pro a mis en place un système de discrimination pour choisir ses futurs franchisés, basé sur l'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Rue89 Strasbourg reported, from working documents and testimony, that the company sorted thousands of CVs on criteria of gender and supposed origin without the candidates' knowledge, between 2023 and 2026.","causal_attribution":"A separate investigation; its readable portion does not mention AI, so it supports the discriminatory sorting and not the AI role."}],"effects":[{"label":"job-seekers screened out of consideration by an AI filter applying age, sex and surname-origin criteria, according to former employees","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.boursorama.com/actualite-economique/actualites-amp/ni-femmes-ni-profils-exotiques-quand-l-ia-est-programmee-pour-discriminer-8819657638628fd90de0e90be62ff869","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read in French by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-11; quotations in the record are the original French and the English renderings in public text are the research agent's own translation. No human translator or reviewer inspected the text. AFP dispatch on Boursorama (AMP page), HTTP 200, full text retained.","independence_group":"afp-plus-que-pro"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.20min.ch/fr/story/alsace-ni-femmes-ni-noms-africains-l-ia-fait-le-job-pour-une-start-up-103647007","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read in French by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-11; quotations in the record are the original French and the English renderings in public text are the research agent's own translation. No human translator or reviewer inspected the text. 20 minutes republishes the AFP dispatch and credits AFP; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"afp-plus-que-pro"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.rue89strasbourg.com/discrimination-recrutement-plus-que-pro-398436","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read in French by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-11; quotations in the record are the original French and the English renderings in public text are the research agent's own translation. No human translator or reviewer inspected the text. Subscriber-only investigation: only the standfirst and opening paragraphs were readable (HTTP 200); the rest, including any AI detail, was not inspected.","independence_group":"rue89-strasbourg-plus-que-pro"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["How many candidates were excluded on discriminatory criteria by the AI filter, and whether the filter ran on the collected CVs as the former employees say or never ran as the company says.","Whether the Rue89 Strasbourg investigation ties the sorting system (named Vortex) to the AI tool; its subscriber-only text was not read in full.","The outcome of the CNIL and Défenseur des droits referrals."],"geography":{"basis":"AFP places the company and the former employees who ran the screening in Schiltigheim, near Strasbourg, France. The candidates' countries are not stated; the CVs came from job platforms such as Hellowork. No court proceeding is reported.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["FR"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as an automated hiring decision case: AFP describes a prompt instructing an AI to reject candidates by age and surname origin and a results table of per-candidate rejection reasons, and a former employee names ChatGPT as the filter that cut 740,000 CVs to 130,000. Rue89 Strasbourg separately reports discriminatory CV sorting at the company. The company denies that the discriminatory version was used on any candidate, so causation is recorded as disputed and all claims as reported.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"AFP reports that it consulted the prompt sent to the AI, which instructed it to estimate candidates' ages and exclude those over 55 or under 27 and to require that surnames not be of African origin, and a results table assigning a rejection reason to each name. A former employee says the CVs were cut from 740,000 to 130,000 in five days \"grâce à ChatGTP\" after the discriminatory filters were applied. The AI output (the per-candidate rejection decisions) is the described connection to the candidates' exclusion. The company says the discriminatory version was never used on any candidate.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"France: ex-employees say Alsace firm Plus que pro used AI to screen out job-seekers' CVs by age, sex and African-origin surnames; firm says it never ran","summary":"Plus que pro, a company founded in 2014 in Schiltigheim near Strasbourg that recruits franchised sales agents, is accused by three former employees interviewed by AFP of building a recruitment tool that screened candidates on unlawful criteria with the help of AI. According to one of them, in spring 2025 the company collected about 740,000 sales CVs from job platforms such as Hellowork and reduced them to 130,000 in five days with ChatGPT after applying discriminatory filters. AFP says it consulted the prompt, which told the AI to estimate each candidate's age, keep those under 55, infer age from the baccalaureate year and exclude those under 27, and require that the candidate's surname not be of African origin, and a results table listing a rejection reason against each name, such as \"too young\" or \"too old\", with women identified by first name marked \"Exception\". A former employee said that all the sales agents retained had the same profile, white and in their forties; another said the AI only systematised a practice already established when CVs were sorted by hand. One former employee says he has referred the matter to the CNIL and the Défenseur des droits; the CNIL said it could not comment on an individual case. The company denies ever asking anyone to build discriminatory criteria into its tools; it acknowledges that one version of the tool contained developments contrary to its specifications, but says that version was never put into service, evaluated no candidate and was developed by a former employee acting on their own initiative, who has since been dismissed. Rue89 Strasbourg separately reported, from working documents and testimony, that the company sorted thousands of CVs on criteria of gender and supposed origin without the candidates' knowledge between 2023 and 2026; its subscriber-only report could be read only in part.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-09","aiSystem":"A recruitment tool built from late 2024 by the company, which sent instructions to a generative AI to screen collected CVs; a former employee quoted by AFP names ChatGPT (\"ChatGTP\" in the AFP text).","aiProduct":"ChatGPT (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to former employees and documents described by AFP, job-seekers whose CVs were collected from job platforms were screened out of consideration for franchised sales-agent positions by an AI filter applying age, sex and surname-origin criteria. No individual rejected candidate is identified in the inspected AI-related reporting and the number excluded on those criteria is not reported. The company says the discriminatory version was never used on any candidate.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"unquantified","affectedCountEvidence":"No reliable count of people harmed. The 740,000 and 130,000 figures are CVs collected and retained, as described by a former employee; the difference includes candidates removed for any reason and is not a count of people excluded on discriminatory criteria. Numeric fields are zero placeholders.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"FR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.boursorama.com/actualite-economique/actualites-amp/ni-femmes-ni-profils-exotiques-quand-l-ia-est-programmee-pour-discriminer-8819657638628fd90de0e90be62ff869","primarySourceLabel":"AFP via Boursorama, 9 October 2026: an Alsace start-up accused by ex-employees of building a discriminatory AI recruitment tool","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-11T03:25:30.958981+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T03:25:30.958981+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hiring","recruitment","discrimination","chatgpt","cv-screening","france","alsace","made-decision-about","institutional-use"]},{"id":"2025-uk-upper-tribunal-asylum-appeal-chatgpt-grounds-fake-cases-invented-quotes-sra-self-report","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"the grounds of appeal were completely infected by the use of AI. In addition to the citation of fake cases, and paragraphs from cases which are not contained in those judgments, the Grounds of Appeal also quote paragraphs from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal which do not appear in that decision.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was pure invention, which was not to be found anywhere in Judge Balroop’s decision, yet criticism of it formed the basis for one aspect of ground (3) in the grounds of appeal.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"In this case, Mr Badar identified at least 18 separate errors in the grounds of appeal and withdrew three of the four grounds.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appellant's then solicitors drafted grounds of appeal that her counsel accepted were completely infected by the use of AI, citing fake cases and paragraphs not contained in the cited judgments and quoting passages from the First-tier Tribunal decision that do not appear in it; the tribunal found one purported quotation to be pure invention.","causal_attribution":"Established by the tribunal's own findings and its record of counsel's concession in the published decision. The Gazette repeats the decision and adds no independent origin."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Both were produced by a junior member of staff, namely a paralegal, using ChatGPT, which itself raises significant concerns about client confidentiality and legal privilege.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This occurred because Sarker Solicitors did not check the accuracy of the grounds of appeal, did not consider the grant of permission and did not check the accuracy of the skeleton argument.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"They accepted that AI was used to generate the grounds of appeal filed in the FtT and the skeleton argument filed in the UT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The grounds of appeal and skeleton argument were drafted by an unnamed paralegal working for east London firm Sarker Solicitors.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The tribunal found that both the grounds of appeal and the skeleton argument were produced by a junior member of staff, a paralegal, using ChatGPT, and that the firm did not check their accuracy; the solicitors had accepted that AI was used to generate both documents.","causal_attribution":"The product identification and the failure to check are the tribunal's findings in the decision, recorded with the solicitors' acceptance that AI generated the documents. The Gazette's statement that the drafter was an unnamed paralegal relays the decision (same independence group)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"A hearing was listed before Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Hobbs on 17 September 2025 to consider whether Judge Balroop had erred in law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Judge Hobbs adjourned the hearing, with directions which included the following:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We note that issues (2) to (4), which occupied a great deal of time at the hearing before us, only arose because of Sarker Solicitors’ inappropriate use of AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant withdrew the original grounds (1), (2) and (4).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant’s application for permission to amend ground (3) is granted.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We accept Mr Terrell’s submission that it is not in the interests of justice in this case that the appellant be permitted to advance entirely new grounds, or to replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, well beyond the original time limit for seeking permission to appeal.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We therefore refuse the application for permission to amend in respect of the new grounds (4) and (5).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant’s application for permission to amend grounds (4) and (5) is refused. For completeness, grounds (4) and (5) have been considered in the alternative and disclose no error of law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"However, ground (3) discloses no error of law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant’s appeal therefore fails.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The judge declined to set aside permission to appeal but dismissed the appeal in any case. The Home Office was invited to file and serve any wasted costs application on Sarker Solicitors within 28 days.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The error-of-law hearing listed for 17 September 2025 was adjourned, and three of the five issues at the final hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of the solicitors' use of AI. The appellant withdrew three of her four original grounds. The tribunal allowed an amended version of her surviving ground (3) but found that it disclosed no error of law. It refused permission to add new grounds (4) and (5), holding that it was not in the interests of justice to let her advance entirely new grounds, or replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, well beyond the original time limit, and in the alternative found those grounds without merit. Her appeal failed.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history and disposition are directly established by the decision. The decision attributes the adjournment and the wasted hearing time to the solicitors' misuse of AI. It gives the misrepresentation-riddled original grounds and the late application as its reasons for refusing the new grounds (para 65), and it also found those grounds without merit in the alternative (para 74). It states separately that the surviving ground failed on its merits, so the dismissal itself is not attributed to the AI output."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and so we will say nothing about the professional conduct issues involved.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The respondent shall file and serve on Sarker Solicitors any wasted costs application, or confirmation that costs are not being pursued, within 28 days of this decision being sent to the parties.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Two individuals involved in filing court documents using ChatGPT which were riddled with mistakes and invented quotes have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and directs the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm within 28 days; no costs decision has been taken.","causal_attribution":"The self-reports and the costs directions are stated in the decision itself. The Gazette repeats them from the decision (same independence group), so the claim is documented, not corroborated. Whether the two individuals are the paralegal and the supervising solicitor is not stated."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"It would be misleading to describe them as having been caused by AI, rather than by the solicitors’ misuse of AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI, rather than a mere mis-citation of particular cases.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The tribunal said it would be misleading to describe the irregularities as caused by AI rather than by the solicitors' misuse of AI. It recorded the Home Office's submission that this was one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal's own qualification, preserved as contrary evidence on causation: the decision places responsibility with the solicitors. The Home Office's characterisations (at best negligent, at worst reckless, and one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI) are relayed in the decision as its submissions (para 43)."}],"effects":[{"label":"Appellant's protection appeal pursued on AI-generated grounds containing fake cases and invented quotations; hearing adjourned and three of four grounds withdrawn","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Two individuals self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; wasted costs application against the firm invited","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2025-002601","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ut-decision-ui-2025-002601"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/duo-self-report-to-sra-over-grounds-of-appeal-infected-with-ai/5128148.article","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ut-decision-ui-2025-002601"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The date on which the paralegal generated the grounds of appeal is not stated; it falls between the First-tier decision of 23 April 2025 and the hearing listed for 17 September 2025.","Whether the two individuals who self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority are the paralegal and the supervising solicitor is not stated, and the outcome of any SRA consideration is unknown.","Whether the Home Office pursued wasted costs, and any amount, was not decided in the published decision.","What prompts were given to ChatGPT, and whether client material was entered into it, is not described; the tribunal only notes that the use raises confidentiality and privilege concerns.","Whether the appellant's appeal would have succeeded on properly drafted grounds cannot be known. The tribunal found that her surviving, amended ground disclosed no error of law, and that the two new grounds it refused to admit disclosed none either when considered in the alternative."],"geography":{"basis":"The decision is an Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision heard at Field House, London, in an appeal against a UK Home Office refusal; the solicitors are described by the Gazette as an east London firm. The appellant is a Namibian national whose appeal concerns her removal from the UK, so her country is recorded as GB on the basis of the proceedings in which she was harmed, and Namibia is not recorded because no harm occurred there.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"The published Upper Tribunal decision (tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk, UI-2025-002601) and the Law Society Gazette report of 8 October 2026 were read in full on 2026-10-09, and the decision was re-read on 2026-10-11 for this correction. The decision records what ChatGPT generated (fake cases, misattributed paragraphs, invented quotations from the First-tier judge) and ties that output to the adjourned hearing, the wasted hearing time, the withdrawn grounds, the refusal of permission to add new grounds, the regulator self-reports and the costs directions. The appellant is anonymised by tribunal order and is described only by nationality and appeal type; the firm is named because the operative costs directions are addressed to it; the paralegal is unnamed. The tribunal's statement that the solicitors' misuse, not AI, caused the irregularities is preserved.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Upper Tribunal's published decision finds that the grounds of appeal and the skeleton argument filed on the appellant's behalf were produced by a paralegal using ChatGPT, and describes what that output contained: citations of fake cases, paragraphs not found in the cited judgments, and purported quotations from the First-tier judge's decision that the tribunal calls pure invention. The decision connects that output to the harm: the September 2025 hearing was adjourned after the Home Office queried the citation errors, three of the five issues at the final hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of the solicitors' use of AI, the appellant withdrew three of four grounds, and the tribunal invited a wasted costs application and noted two self-reports to the regulator. The FtT judge granted permission on those grounds while noting the misquotations, and the Upper Tribunal's decisions not to set aside permission and to refuse the new grounds were taken in the express context of the misrepresentations (paras 46-47, 65 and 74). The tribunal itself states that the irregularities were caused by the solicitors' misuse of AI rather than by AI, and the decision records the solicitors' own acceptance that AI was used. The firm's acceptance and the tribunal's findings come from one record, so the status is supported rather than corroborated by an independent source.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["acted_on_behalf","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"UK Upper Tribunal: solicitors' ChatGPT-drafted grounds in an asylum appeal cited fake cases and invented quotes; two individuals self-report to the SRA","summary":"A published Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision issued on 21 September 2026 records that the grounds of appeal and skeleton argument in a Namibian national's protection appeal were produced by a paralegal at her then solicitors using ChatGPT. The tribunal recorded her counsel's acceptance that the grounds cited fake cases, quoted passages absent from those judgments and attributed to the First-tier judge sentences he never wrote, and itself called one purported quotation pure invention. The September 2025 error-of-law hearing was adjourned, and the appellant later withdrew three of her four original grounds. The tribunal allowed an amended version of her one surviving ground but found that it disclosed no error of law. It refused her permission to add two new grounds, holding that she should not be allowed to advance entirely new grounds, or replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, so long after the time limit, and in the alternative found those grounds without merit. It directed the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; the Law Society Gazette reported the decision on 8 October 2026.","incidentDate":"2025-09-17","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-21","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-06","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, used by a paralegal to generate grounds of appeal and a skeleton argument (as found in the Upper Tribunal decision)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The tribunal records that the appellant's error-of-law hearing in September 2025 was adjourned, that three of the five issues at the eventual hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of her solicitors' inappropriate use of AI, that she withdrew three of her four original grounds, that it refused her permission to add two new grounds, holding that she should not be allowed to advance entirely new grounds, or replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, long after the time limit, and that her appeal fails. It found her one surviving, amended ground disclosed no error of law and, in the alternative, that the two refused grounds disclosed none either. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and directs the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm; no costs decision has been taken.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the appellant, whose appeal proceeded on AI-generated grounds she did not draft (the decision describes her as the appellant throughout). The paralegal who used ChatGPT and the supervising solicitor face professional consequences of their own conduct (self-report to the SRA, possible wasted costs) and are not counted as harmed persons; the two self-reporting individuals are not named as the paralegal and the solicitor in the decision.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"chatbot","primarySourceUrl":"https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2025-002601","primarySourceLabel":"Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), UI-2025-002601, decision issued 21 September 2026, published 6 October 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:28:56.311373+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:43:28.275795+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":[]},{"id":"2024-australian-catholic-university-turnitin-ai-detector-misconduct-referrals","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"'ACU registered nearly 6,000 cases of alleged academic misconduct across its nine campuses in 2024, according to internal documents seen by the ABC.'; 'About 90 per cent of those referrals related to AI use.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In a statement, deputy vice-chancellor Tania Broadley told the ABC those figures were \"substantially overstated\".'","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"ACU registered nearly 6,000 cases of alleged academic misconduct across its nine campuses in 2024, about 90 per cent of them relating to AI use, according to internal documents seen by the ABC; ACU's deputy vice-chancellor called the figures substantially overstated.","causal_attribution":"The ABC's reading of internal documents; disputed by the university."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'While the student produced dozens of pages of evidence, the university's case hinged on a single AI-generated report that highlighted problematic text.'; 'almost my entire essay was lit up in blue — 84 per cent of it supposedly written by AI'; 'said a final year ACU paramedic student wrongly accused of cheating with AI'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The ABC reports that the university's case against a final-year paramedic student hinged on a single AI-generated report, which the student said marked 84 per cent of the essay as AI-written, while the student produced dozens of pages of evidence; the ABC describes the student as wrongly accused.","causal_attribution":"The student's account and the ABC's description; the detector report itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'But email chains and documentation obtained by the ABC indicate ACU regularly relied on the report alone.'; 'When the paramedic student requested additional evidence, they were sent a copy of their original assessment — identical to the AI report, minus the highlighting.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Email chains and documents obtained by the ABC indicate ACU regularly relied on the AI report alone; when the paramedic student asked for more evidence, the university sent a copy of the original assessment matching the AI report without the highlighting.","causal_attribution":"The ABC's reading of documents it obtained."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Each said they were notified at the end of the semester, given little time to respond and had to wait months for the university to conclude they had done nothing wrong.'; 'The ABC has seen emails from ACU academic integrity officers requesting students provide handwritten and typed notes and internet search histories to rule out AI use.'; 'Professor Broadley said this was no longer part of the university's practice.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Students the ABC spoke to said they were notified at the end of semester, given little time to respond and waited months to be cleared; the ABC saw emails asking students for handwritten and typed notes and internet search histories, a practice ACU says it has stopped.","causal_attribution":"Student accounts and emails the ABC saw; the university's response."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'They don't have a search warrant to request your search history, but when [you're facing] the cost of having to repeat a unit, you just do what they want.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The paramedic student said the university had no search warrant to request a search history, but that when facing the cost of having to repeat a unit, 'you just do what they want'.","causal_attribution":"The student's account."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In it, the university accused her of using artificial intelligence (AI) to cheat on an assignment.'; 'It took six months for ACU to clear'; 'academic transcript was marked \"results withheld\".'; 'is convinced that incomplete document was part of the reason she was not offered a graduate position.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A final-year nursing student was accused by email of using AI to cheat on an assignment and cleared after six months; meanwhile her transcript was marked 'results withheld', which she believes was part of the reason she was not offered a graduate position. The report does not say what evidence prompted her referral.","causal_attribution":"Her account; the link between the withheld results and the job outcome is her belief, and no detector is named in her case."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In 2023, Turnitin added an AI detector to its toolkit.'; '\"It should not be used as the sole basis for adverse actions against a student,\" the statement reads.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Turnitin added an AI detector in 2023 and states that its AI reports may not always be accurate and should not be the sole basis for adverse actions against a student.","causal_attribution":"Turnitin's published caution as quoted by the ABC."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'According to internal ACU documents, the university was aware of issues with the AI detector tool for more than a year before it scrapped it.'; 'ACU abandoned the Turnitin tool in March after finding it to be ineffective.'; 'any case where Turnitin's AI detection tool was the sole evidence was dismissed immediately.'; '\"We regret the impact this had on some students,\" she said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'revelations that the Australian Catholic University accused thousands of students of AI-related academic misconduct, only to conclude months later that many had done nothing wrong.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to internal ACU documents reported by the ABC, the university knew of problems with the AI detector for more than a year before abandoning the Turnitin tool in March after finding it ineffective; ACU's deputy vice-chancellor said Turnitin-only cases were dismissed immediately, acknowledged investigations were not always timely and said the university regretted the impact on some students.","causal_attribution":"The ABC's reading of internal documents and the university's statement."}],"effects":[{"label":"misconduct referral resting on an AI-detection report, with months of investigation before clearance (student account)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"demands for notes and search histories while facing the cost of repeating a unit (student account)","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"},{"label":"transcript marked results withheld for six months during an AI-use investigation whose evidence the report does not state (student account)","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-09/artificial-intelligence-cheating-australian-catholic-university/105863524","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from abc.net.au (HTTP 200). The internal ACU documents and emails the ABC describes were not inspected.","independence_group":"abc-au"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-20/universities-using-ai-to-detect-students-cheating/105905804","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English from abc.net.au (HTTP 200). Same publisher as s1; its ACU sentence restates s1's findings and is not independent of it.","independence_group":"abc-au"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education"],"unknowns":["How many students were flagged by the detector and later cleared; ACU would not say.","The dates of the individual referrals and the year of the March abandonment, which the report gives without a year.","Whether the nursing student's referral involved the detector.","What the Herald Sun's 1 October 2026 report adds about later ACU cases; it could not be read.","Which tool produced the paramedic student's report; the ABC does not name it and places it in its account of Turnitin's AI reports and ACU's use of Turnitin's detector."],"geography":{"basis":"ACU is an Australian university and the ABC describes referrals across its nine campuses; the students' countries of residence are not stated.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete account, from an ABC investigation using student interviews and internal documents, of students at an Australian university facing misconduct cases that rested on an AI-detection report, with the university's own acknowledgement of delays and its abandonment of the detector. Students are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The ABC reports that the case against a final-year paramedic student hinged on a single AI-generated detection report marking 84 per cent of an essay as AI-written, that ACU regularly relied on the report alone, and that ACU used Turnitin's AI-detection tool until abandoning it. The detector's output was a claim that the student's own writing was AI-generated, and the student describes the investigation, evidence demands and fear of repeating a unit that followed until clearance.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Australian Catholic University: ABC reports students wrongly accused of AI cheating, one case resting on a lone AI-detection report","summary":"The ABC reported on 9 October 2025 that Australian Catholic University (ACU) registered nearly 6,000 cases of alleged academic misconduct across its nine campuses in 2024, according to internal documents, and that about 90 per cent of the referrals related to AI use. The ABC reports that the university's case against a final-year paramedic student hinged on a single AI-generated report that, the student said, marked 84 per cent of an essay as AI-written; the student produced dozens of pages of evidence and the ABC describes the student as wrongly accused. Students the ABC spoke to said they were notified at the end of semester, had little time to respond and waited months to be cleared, and the ABC saw emails asking students for handwritten notes and internet search histories. A final-year nursing student was cleared after six months, during which her transcript read 'results withheld'; she believes this cost her a graduate position, and the report does not say what evidence prompted her referral. The ABC says internal documents show ACU knew of problems with the detector for more than a year before abandoning the Turnitin tool in March. ACU's deputy vice-chancellor called the figures substantially overstated, said cases resting solely on Turnitin's AI detection were dismissed immediately, acknowledged investigations were not always timely and said the university regretted the impact on some students.","incidentDate":"2024-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-10-09","aiSystem":"Turnitin's AI-writing detection, used by Australian Catholic University in academic-integrity referrals until the university abandoned it","aiProduct":"Turnitin AI-text detector","aiCompany":"Turnitin","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Students referred for alleged AI-related misconduct, one on the strength of a single AI-detection report marking 84 per cent of an essay as AI-written, described months of investigation, demands for notes and search histories and fear of repeating units before being cleared (ABC report based on student accounts, internal documents and emails it saw).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One person is counted: the final-year paramedic student whose case, per the ABC, hinged on a single AI-generated detection report. The ABC spoke to several other students issued AI-related infringements but does not number them or say which were detector-flagged; the nursing student's referral is not tied to the detector in the report, so she is not counted. The nearly 6,000 referrals are misconduct cases, not a count of people harmed by the detector, and ACU disputes the figure.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"AU","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-09/artificial-intelligence-cheating-australian-catholic-university/105863524","primarySourceLabel":"ABC News, 9 October 2025: University wrongly accuses students of using artificial intelligence to cheat","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-06T03:13:27.616887+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T03:13:27.616887+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-text-detector","academic-integrity","education","australia","turnitin","university"]},{"id":"2017-mobley-v-workday-ai-applicant-screening-job-rejections-discrimination-lawsuit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 1: 'brings this action for employment discrimination against Workday, Inc.'; 'algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other similarly situated job applicants on the basis of race, age, and disability'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A job applicant brought an employment discrimination action against Workday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that its algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other applicants on the basis of race, age and disability.","causal_attribution":"The order establishes that the action exists and what it alleges. It does not establish that the allegations are true."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Pages 2-3: 'Mobley has allegedly applied to over 100 positions with companies that use Workday'; 'screening tools for talent acquisition and hiring since 2017'; 'Mobley was allegedly denied employment for every one of the'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that since 2017 he applied to more than 100 positions with companies that use Workday's screening tools and was denied employment on every one.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court on a motion to dismiss. It is not a finding."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 3: 'his application was rejected less than an hour later'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that one application, submitted at 12:55 a.m., was rejected less than an hour later.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court. The plaintiffs argue that the timing indicates automated screening, and no finding has been made."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2: 'enabling these applications to make hiring decisions'; 'employer should accept or reject an application'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that Workday's tools embed AI and machine learning and determine whether an employer should accept or reject an application.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegation as recited by the court. Workday disputes that its tools make hiring decisions."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The motion to dismiss the disparate impact claims under Title VII, the ADEA, and the'; 'ADA is therefore denied'; 'intentionally discriminated against him based on race and age'; 'Document 80 Filed 07/12/24'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 12 July 2024 the court granted Workday's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part: the disparate-impact claims proceed and the claims of intentional discrimination were dismissed.","causal_attribution":"The court's own ruling on the pleadings. It decides whether the claims may proceed and makes no finding of discrimination."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 1: 'motion for preliminary certification of the collective is GRANTED'; 'Mobley is joined by four other plaintiffs over the age of forty'; 'Document 128'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 16 May 2025 the court granted preliminary certification of a collective on the age-discrimination claim, and four other plaintiffs over forty had joined the named plaintiff.","causal_attribution":"The court's own procedural ruling, which the order says can be revisited after discovery. It makes no finding of discrimination."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 1: 'who allege that they too have applied for hundreds of jobs via Workday and have been rejected almost every time without an interview'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The four further plaintiffs allege that they applied for hundreds of jobs via Workday and were rejected almost every time without an interview.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs' allegations as recited by the court. They attribute the rejections to age discrimination in the recommendation system, which is not established."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the plaintiffs filed their class-certification request on September 14 in federal court in San Francisco'; 'Workday has denied wrongdoing, saying its AI tools evaluate job qualifications rather than protected characteristics'; 'its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed, and rejected'; 'A hearing on whether the case can proceed as a class action is scheduled for March 9, 2027'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Black Information Network, citing Reuters, reported on 24 September 2026 that the plaintiffs filed a class-certification request on 14 September, that Workday denies wrongdoing and says its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected, and that a hearing is scheduled for 9 March 2027.","causal_attribution":"A relay of Reuters reporting. The motion and the Reuters article were not read."}],"effects":[{"label":"denied employment on every one of more than 100 applications to companies using Workday's screening tools (plaintiff's allegation)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"four further plaintiffs over forty rejected almost every time without an interview (their allegation, as recited by the court)","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.80.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English: the 20-page order of 12 July 2024 as text extracted from the PDF.","independence_group":"mobley-v-workday-court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.128.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English: the 20-page order of 16 May 2025 as text extracted from the PDF.","independence_group":"mobley-v-workday-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.binnews.com/alternate/amp/2026-09-24-black-job-seekers-allege-workdays-ai-hiring-tools-discriminate-seek-class-action/","kind":"news_relay","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English. The article attributes its account to Reuters, whose article was not read.","independence_group":"reuters-workday-class-certification-2026-09"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Whether Workday's tools, the employers' own settings or human reviewers produced each rejection.","Which employers were involved beyond those named in the order, and the dates of the individual applications.","The contents of the September 2026 class-certification motion and of the Reuters article, neither of which was read.","The outcome of the case on the merits."],"geography":{"basis":"The case is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, and the 2025 order describes the proposed group as a 'nationwide collective' under US federal employment statutes, which places the applications in the United States. The plaintiffs' places of residence were not read in the passages inspected.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete, court-documented allegation that an AI applicant-screening system repeatedly rejected a named job applicant. The existence of the suit and two rulings are established by the court's orders. The rejections and the role of the tools are the plaintiffs' allegations, which Workday denies and no court has decided.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The plaintiffs allege that Workday's AI-based screening and recommendation tools decided or recommended the rejection of their applications. The court's orders recite those allegations and found the disparate-impact claims plausibly pleaded. The 2025 order quotes Workday's discovery statement that its Candidate Skills Match tool 'utilizes artificial intelligence' and that customers choose whether to turn it on. Workday says its tools evaluate qualifications and that its customers control rejections. Whether an automated tool made any particular rejection is not established.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Job applicant alleges Workday's AI applicant-screening tools rejected more than 100 of his applications on the basis of race, age and disability; a US federal court let disparate-impact claims proceed and preliminarily certified an age-discrimination collective","summary":"Derek Mobley sued Workday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the company's algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminated against him and other job applicants on the basis of race, age and disability. According to the court's summary of the complaint, Mobley alleges that since 2017 he applied to more than 100 positions with companies that use Workday's screening tools and was denied employment on every one, in one instance less than an hour after applying at 12:55 a.m. On 12 July 2024 the court dismissed the claims of intentional discrimination and allowed the disparate-impact claims to proceed. On 16 May 2025 it granted preliminary certification of a collective on the age-discrimination claim, by which time four further plaintiffs over forty had joined. The Black Information Network, citing Reuters, reported on 24 September 2026 that the plaintiffs had asked the court to certify a class action and that a hearing is set for 9 March 2027. Workday denies wrongdoing and says its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected. No court has ruled on whether the tools discriminated.","incidentDate":"2017-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","aiSystem":"Workday's applicant screening tools on its job-application platform, which the court's orders describe from the complaint as 'algorithm-based applicant screening tools' (2024) and an AI-based 'applicant recommendation system' (2025). The plaintiffs allege the tools score, sort, rank or screen applicants. Workday says its AI tools evaluate job qualifications and that its customers control how applicants are sorted, reviewed and rejected (as relayed from Reuters). The 2025 order names two tools discussed in the certification briefing: Candidate Skills Match, which Workday said in discovery 'utilizes artificial intelligence' to compare a job posting with an application within its Workday Recruiting service and which customers can turn on or off, and Workday Assessment Connector, which is alleged to use machine learning","aiProduct":"Workday applicant screening tools","aiCompany":"Workday","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The named plaintiff alleges that he was denied employment on every one of more than 100 applications made since 2017 to companies using Workday's screening tools and that the tools discriminated by race, age and disability. Four further plaintiffs over forty allege repeated rejections without an interview. Workday denies wrongdoing, and no court has ruled on the merits.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":5,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Five plaintiffs who allege rejections: the named plaintiff and the four opt-in plaintiffs whose declarations the court's 16 May 2025 order describes ('four other plaintiffs over the age of forty'; each 'alleges that they received at least one \"automated\" rejection email'). People who may opt in to the collective are not counted. The count records people who report harm and does not establish that the tools caused it.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.408645/gov.uscourts.cand.408645.128.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court, N.D. California, Mobley v. Workday, order granting preliminary collective certification, 16 May 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-05T03:19:40.629587+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T03:19:40.629587+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["made-decision-about","hiring","applicant-screening","workday","employment-discrimination","age-discrimination","lawsuit","institutional-use"]},{"id":"2023-espanola-new-mexico-flock-alpr-misread-plate-sisters-handcuffed-lawsuits","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'pulled the sisters over July 23 on Calle Duran after they had passed through an intersection equipped with a Flock Safety camera, which incorrectly flagged their car’s license plate as belonging to a stolen vehicle, according to the lawsuits.'; 'officers pulled the vehicle over and handcuffed them before placing them in the back of police vehicles prior to discovering the error.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'when Flock notified police that her Kia was stolen.'; 'Body camera footage from the July 2023 stop shows officers stopping the sisters and ordering them to exit the car, before handcuffing them.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In July 2023 Española police stopped the sisters' car after a Flock camera alert identified it as stolen, and officers ordered both sisters out and handcuffed them, including the 12-year-old.","causal_attribution":"The lawsuits as reported, and Business Insider's separate review of the body-camera footage."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'The plate number ended in 2, which the camera incorrectly read as 7, according to the complaint.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'According to an incident report, the camera misread a \"2\" for a \"7.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The camera misread a 2 on the plate as a 7.","causal_attribution":"The sisters' complaint (as reported by the Santa Fe New Mexican) and the police incident report (as reported by Business Insider) agree on the misread."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'compensation for personal injuries including “anxiety, fear, worry and restriction of movement.”'; 'Instead, officers handcuffed the girl and put her in the back of a different police vehicle, according to the complaint.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The sisters' lawsuits sought damages including compensation for anxiety, fear, worry and restriction of movement; the older sister had asked an officer to call their mother to collect the 12-year-old, and officers instead handcuffed the girl.","causal_attribution":"The sisters' complaints as reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Two Rio Arriba County sisters have filed lawsuits against the city of Española'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The family filed a lawsuit and settled with the city in 2025.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The family filed lawsuits against the city of Española and settled with the city in 2025.","causal_attribution":"Filing reported by the Santa Fe New Mexican; settlement reported by Business Insider without terms."},{"id":"c5","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"'Officers said the number was obscured by a license plate cover, though it'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Officers said a license plate cover obscured the number; Business Insider says the number is visible in the body-camera footage it reviewed.","causal_attribution":"Officers' explanation as reported by Business Insider, contradicted by Business Insider's own review of the footage."}],"effects":[{"label":"both sisters, one aged 12, handcuffed and held in police vehicles after a misread license-plate-camera alert flagged their car as stolen","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"lawsuits claimed anxiety, fear, worry and restriction of movement","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/sisters-sue-espa-ola-over-traffic-stop-they-say-was-illegal/article_1c949c30-ae3e-11ee-ad85-f71a8c9ecb1e.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-04 from the Internet Archive 2026 capture (Santa Fe New Mexican, 8 January 2024); the live site returned HTTP 429. Reports the two complaints and the attorney's comments.","independence_group":"espanola-sisters-lawsuits"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.businessinsider.com/flock-safety-alpr-cameras-misreads-2026-3","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-10-04 (Business Insider, 9 March 2026); full text present in the served page. Draws on its own review of body-camera footage and the incident report.","independence_group":"business-insider-records-review"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Settlement terms and date in 2025.","The state district court case numbers; the complaints were not read.","How long the sisters were held before officers found the error."],"geography":{"basis":"The stop took place on Calle Duran in Española, New Mexico; the sisters are from Rio Arriba County, and the suits were filed in New Mexico state district court (Santa Fe New Mexican).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional-use case consistent with the held Flock misread rows: the sisters' lawsuits (Santa Fe New Mexican) and the police incident report and body-camera footage reviewed by Business Insider describe a Flock license-plate-camera misread that led officers to handcuff a 21-year-old and her 12-year-old sister. Neither sister is named here.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-04"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sisters' lawsuits (Santa Fe New Mexican) say a Flock Safety camera incorrectly flagged the plate as belonging to a stolen vehicle, reading a 2 as a 7; Business Insider reports the incident report records the same misread and describes the cameras as Flock's AI cameras. The plate match against a stolen-vehicle record is the automated system's claim about the car; the decision to handcuff both sisters was the officers'.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Police in New Mexico handcuffed two sisters, one a child, after a Flock plate camera misread a digit and flagged their car as stolen, lawsuits say; settled 2025","summary":"On 23 July 2023 Española police officers pulled over a car driven by a 21-year-old woman with her 12-year-old sister as a passenger, after a Flock Safety camera at an intersection flagged the car's plate as belonging to a vehicle stolen in Rio Rancho. According to the sisters' lawsuits, reported by the Santa Fe New Mexican in January 2024, the camera had read a 2 on the plate as a 7, and officers handcuffed both sisters and placed them in the backs of separate police vehicles before discovering the error; the older sister had asked an officer to call their mother, who lived nearby, to collect the girl. The suits sought damages for anxiety, fear, worry and restriction of movement. Business Insider, which reviewed the body-camera footage and incident report, reported in March 2026 that officers said the number was obscured by a license plate cover although it is visible in the footage, and that the family settled with the city in 2025.","incidentDate":"2023-07-23","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-01-08","aiSystem":"Flock Safety automated license-plate-reader camera at an Española intersection (described by Business Insider as one of Flock's AI cameras) that misread the car's plate, matched it to a stolen-vehicle record and notified police","aiProduct":"Flock Safety license plate readers","aiCompany":"Flock Safety","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Both sisters, one of them 12, were handcuffed and held in the backs of police vehicles after the misread alert; their lawsuits claimed anxiety, fear, worry and restriction of movement (Santa Fe New Mexican). The family settled with the city in 2025 (Business Insider).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people, the sisters, both handcuffed and placed in police vehicles (Santa Fe New Mexican; Business Insider). Exact 2.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"US-NM","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_settled","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/sisters-sue-espa-ola-over-traffic-stop-they-say-was-illegal/article_1c949c30-ae3e-11ee-ad85-f71a8c9ecb1e.html","primarySourceLabel":"Santa Fe New Mexican, 8 January 2024: Sisters sue Española over traffic stop they say was illegal","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-04T03:31:48.559655+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T03:03:27.071855+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["flock","alpr","license-plate-reader","misread","wrongful-stop","handcuffed","minor","new-mexico","espanola","justice","made-claim-about","settlement"]},{"id":"2026-meta-instagram-ai-assisted-account-recovery-tool-exploited-to-reset-passwords","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"the system incorrectly sent a password reset link to that unassociated email rather than rejecting the request","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This allowed unauthorized third parties to receive a password reset link for accounts they did not own","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The chatbot can be seen sending a verification code to the email address provided by the hacker","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"TechCrunch was able to verify that the hacker’s public email mailbox, which was displayed in the video, effectively received the verification code.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Through Meta's AI-assisted account recovery support system (High Touch Support), third parties received password reset links or verification codes for Instagram accounts they did not own, sent to an email address that was not associated with the account.","causal_attribution":"Two evidential bases: Meta's own notice to the Maine Attorney General (a party's account of its own system) and videos the attackers posted, in which TechCrunch confirmed that the mailbox shown received the verification code. TechCrunch's check covers that one delivery. It did not test which Meta tool sent the code or who owned the target account, and the videos were not opened for this review. The link between the chat assistant in the videos and High Touch Support is made by press reports and by Meta's spokesperson referring to the AI agent. No inspected document names both. Meta says the tool worked as intended and the failure lay in a separate code path (see c5), so the AI component's own contribution is disputed."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"the hacker opened a chat with Meta AI Support Assistant and asked the bot to add a new email address to the target’s account.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"which prompts the chatbot to show a button to “Reset Password.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"One video shows a hacker starting a conversation with Meta’s AI support bot and asking it to link the target account with a new email address","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"using a VPN connection with an IP address that is in or near the target’s usual hometown","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"The bot followed through with the request - sending a code to the hacker's email which, when verified, was followed by an email with a link to change their password.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Attackers asked Meta's AI support assistant in a chat to add or link a new email address to a target Instagram username, and some used a VPN to appear in the target's location. In one video the assistant then sent a verification code to that address and showed a button to reset the password.","causal_attribution":"Every account of the chat steps traces to videos and screenshots the attackers posted on Telegram and X. TechCrunch checked one displayed mailbox. The other videos were not independently reproduced."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"the unauthorized party was able to log in to the account if the account holder had not enabled two-factor authentication (2FA)","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The hackers who released the video on Telegram said their exploit failed to work against any accounts that had MFA enabled.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"Meta's notice says the account could be logged into after the password reset if the account holder had not enabled two-factor authentication. Krebs on Security reports that the attackers who posted the video said the exploit failed against accounts with multi-factor authentication.","causal_attribution":"Meta's statement about its own system and the attackers' own statement as relayed by Krebs. Neither was tested independently."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"it can also take action for you on a growing set of requests directly within Facebook and in the future, on Instagram, including:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s12"},{"locator":"Resetting passwords","relation":"supports","source_id":"s12"},{"locator":"We’ve also started rolling out the support assistant to people who need help logging into their Facebook and Instagram accounts, starting with select cases in the US and Canada","relation":"supports","source_id":"s12"}],"assertion":"Meta announced the Meta AI support assistant for Facebook and Instagram on 19 March 2026, described it as able to take action on requests including resetting passwords directly within Facebook and, in the future, on Instagram, and said it had started rolling it out to people who need help logging into Facebook and Instagram accounts, starting with select cases in the US and Canada.","causal_attribution":"Meta's own product announcement. The announcement does not say which tool the exploited flow used. The link between this assistant and the High Touch Support tool named in Meta's notice is made by the press reports and by the notice's own description of an AI-assisted account recovery system."},{"id":"c5","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"The tool itself worked properly and functioned as intended; however due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify that the email address provided by the individual requesting a password reset matched the email address associated with that user’s Instagram account.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Some of our internal backend checks failed in this instance, but it wasn’t due to the AI agent itself, and we’ve addressed the underlying cause.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s11"},{"locator":"Hackers simply told Meta’s AI chatbot that they were the owners of the target’s account, and asked the bot to link that person’s account to an email they controlled. The chatbot complied with the request","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Whether the failure lay in the AI agent or in a separate code path is disputed. Meta's notice says the tool worked as intended and that a bug in a separate code path did not check the requester's email address against the account, and a Meta spokesperson told Gizmodo that some internal backend checks failed and that this was not due to the AI agent itself. TechCrunch describes the chatbot as complying with the attackers' request.","causal_attribution":"Meta's account of its own system. TechCrunch's description of the chatbot as complying with the request is a reporter's characterisation from the attackers' videos and does not test where in Meta's system the check failed."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Date(s) Breach Occured: 04/17/2026","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Date Breach Discovered: 05-31-2026","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"May 31, 2026, Meta discovered that there was a vulnerability in an AI-assisted account","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"same day the exploitation was identified by Meta, the following actions were taken to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the AI-assisted support tool removing the vulnerable code path from production","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Meta's notice lists 17 April 2026 as the date the breach occurred (as 04/17/2026) and 31 May 2026 as the date it discovered the vulnerability, and says Meta disabled the AI-assisted support tool on the same day the exploitation was identified.","causal_attribution":"Meta's own dates for its own system. The notice letter gives the discovery date and no start date. The 17 April date appears only in the listing form, and the basis for it is not stated."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Total number of persons affected (including residents): 20225","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Total number of Maine residents affected: 30","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"reset through the support tool, did not have 2FA enabled on their account and whose Instagram accounts were likely accessed by an unauthorized party.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This number represents an upper bound of the users impacted as some of the accounts may have been accessed legitimately by account owners.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Maine Attorney General listing of Meta's submission gives 20225 as the total number of persons affected and 30 as the number of Maine residents. The notice defines the Maine figure as users whose passwords were reset through the tool, who had no two-factor authentication and whose accounts were likely accessed by an unauthorized party, and calls it an upper bound because some accounts may have been accessed legitimately by their owners.","causal_attribution":"Meta's own estimate. The notice's upper-bound wording is written for the Maine figure. The inspected notice does not say whether the total of 20225 counts accounts or people, how many were taken over, or how many are organisational accounts."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"“The password got changed without my knowledge and I was getting different password reset attempts throughout yesterday,” said Wong.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"And I got repeatedly logged out from the IG iOS app[.] Quite concerning.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"},{"locator":"it took about five to 10 minutes to reinstate her account","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"Wong, who previously worked at Meta as a security engineer, said in a post on X her Instagram password was \"changed without my knowledge\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Jane Manchun Wong, a security researcher and former Meta employee, posted on X that her Instagram password was changed without her knowledge, that she received password reset attempts and was repeatedly logged out of the app, and told Reuters that reinstating her account took about five to ten minutes.","causal_attribution":"Her own public statements, relayed by four outlets. The X post itself was not opened. Wong does not say in the quoted statements how her account was accessed, and the outlets connect it to the exploit."},{"id":"c9","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"and the account of the U.S. Space Force’s chief master sergeant","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"the account of the U.S. Space Force’s chief master sergeant","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"the Chief Master Sergeant of the U.S. Space Force were briefly defaced with pro-Iranian images and messages over the weekend","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"the Chief Master Sergeant of Space Force’s account","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"TechCrunch and Krebs on Security report that the Instagram account of the U.S. Space Force's Chief Master Sergeant was compromised, and Krebs reports that it was briefly defaced with pro-Iranian images and messages.","causal_attribution":"Reporters' accounts based on screenshots the attackers posted. The account holder is not quoted in the inspected sources and is described here by office only. Whether the account is a personal or an official office account is not stated."},{"id":"c10","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"including the Barack Obama White House account , the Chief Master Sergeant of Space Force’s account , and Sephora’s account","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"The Sephora corporate page and the account belonging to the Chief Master Sergeant of the U.S. Space Force were also hit.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"},{"locator":"The Instagram accounts for the Obama White House and the Chief Master Sergeant of the U.S. Space Force were briefly defaced","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"The former US president's account reportedly posted pro-Iran content before it was recovered.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"the dormant Obama White House account (which Meta disputed)","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Outlets named the Sephora corporate account and a dormant Obama White House account among the compromised accounts, and Krebs and the BBC report that the Obama White House account was defaced with pro-Iran content. TechCrunch's 3 June report lists the Obama White House account among apparent victims with the parenthetical '(which Meta disputed)'. Both are organisational or institutional accounts and are not counted as affected persons.","causal_attribution":"Reporters' accounts. The Guardian, Gizmodo and Reuters name Sephora on the strength of 404 Media's reporting, so Sephora rests on one chain. TechCrunch does not say what Meta disputed about the Obama White House account. The BBC reports that Meta's spokesperson called claims that world leaders' accounts were hacked totally false."},{"id":"c11","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"allowing the hacker to reset the target account’s password and take control of the account — in some cases locking out the victims.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"locking users out of their accounts and prompting a wave of complaints on platforms including X and Reddit.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"One X user wrote that they had been unable to find \"human support\" after their Instagram account was hacked.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"Everyday users complained of similar hijackings on Reddit and X over the weekend.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"}],"assertion":"Some victims were reported locked out of their accounts, and one person wrote on X that they could not find human support after their Instagram account was hacked.","causal_attribution":"Reporters' summaries of complaints on X and Reddit. The individual posts were not opened and the complainants are not identified."},{"id":"c12","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"TechCrunch has seen examples of allegedly hacked handles featuring common forenames or names of countries","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"(It’s important to note that it’s hard to know for sure if all these accounts were hacked due to the same technique.)","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"hijack a number of valuable (read: short) Instagram account names that allegedly have a resale value of more than a half million dollars.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"404 Media has seen text files of huge lists of “OG,” or high-value, original usernames","relation":"context","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Short Instagram handles were reported taken in the campaign and offered for resale. TechCrunch saw examples of allegedly hacked handles being advertised for sale and notes it is hard to know whether all were taken with this technique. Krebs reports that the attackers claimed the resale value of the short handles they took exceeded half a million dollars.","causal_attribution":"The resale and value claims come from attackers' Telegram posts as relayed by TechCrunch and Krebs. No sale was confirmed and the owners are not identified."},{"id":"c13","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"This issue has been resolved and we are securing impacted accounts,\" Meta spokesperson Andy Stone told users in a statement on X","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"On Monday, Instagram spokesperson Andy Stone said in a reply to Wong’s post and others that the issue was now fixed.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Invalidated all existing password reset links that had been generated through the vulnerable path","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"potentially affected accounts into a mandatory security checkpoint requiring authentication before any account access","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"impacted users to reset their passwords and re-authenticate through secure, verified channels","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A Meta spokesperson said on X on 1 June 2026 that the issue was resolved and Meta was securing impacted accounts. Meta's notice says that it disabled the tool, invalidated existing password reset links generated through the vulnerable path, enrolled potentially affected accounts in a mandatory security checkpoint and told impacted users to reset their passwords.","causal_attribution":"Meta's statements about its own response. TechCrunch reports that the response did not end the reports (see c14)."},{"id":"c14","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On Tuesday, however, more Instagram users claimed to have had their accounts hacked.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"who claimed to still be able to exploit Meta’s AI chatbot, and they were advertising apparently hacked handles for sale","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"TechCrunch reported on 3 June 2026 that more Instagram users claimed to have had accounts hacked after Meta said the issue was resolved, and that members of a Telegram channel claimed they could still exploit the chatbot.","causal_attribution":"Claims by users and Telegram members as relayed by TechCrunch. The claims were not verified, and Meta's notice says the tool was disabled on 31 May 2026."}],"effects":[{"label":"A named security researcher reported that her Instagram password was changed without her knowledge and that she was logged out, and she told Reuters the account was reinstated in about five to ten minutes","claim_id":"c8","direction":"negative"},{"label":"The Instagram account of the U.S. Space Force's Chief Master Sergeant was reported compromised and briefly defaced with pro-Iranian content","claim_id":"c9","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Some account holders were reported locked out of their Instagram accounts, and one reported being unable to reach human support","claim_id":"c11","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Short Instagram handles were reported taken and offered for resale on Telegram","claim_id":"c12","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.maine.gov/cgi-bin/agviewerad/ret?loc=4169","kind":"regulatory_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Notice PDF read directly. Its text layer separates words with U+200B characters and detaches the first letter of some paragraphs, so locators from this source are given with those characters read as spaces.","independence_group":"meta-own-statements"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://web.archive.org/web/20260609035813id_/https://www.maine.gov/agviewer/content/ag/985235c7-cb95-4be2-8792-a1252b4f8318/686120c8-63be-4e3c-b7ed-466d65b672f5.html","kind":"official_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-own-statements"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://techcrunch.com/2026/06/01/hackers-hijacked-instagram-accounts-by-tricking-meta-ai-support-chatbot-into-granting-access/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"attacker-posted-videos"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://techcrunch.com/2026/06/03/instagram-is-alerting-users-who-were-targeted-by-hackers-during-ai-chatbot-attacks/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"attacker-posted-videos"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.404media.co/hackers-simply-asked-meta-ai-to-give-them-access-to-high-profile-instagram-accounts-it-worked/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read through an Internet Archive capture of 1 June 2026 (20260601172133) because the live page is paywalled. The capture carries the full article.","independence_group":"attacker-posted-videos"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://krebsonsecurity.com/2026/06/hackers-used-metas-ai-support-bot-to-seize-instagram-accounts/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"attacker-posted-videos"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98rzr72dpyo","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"attacker-posted-videos"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jun/01/meta-ai-hack-obama-sephora-instagram","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"attacker-posted-videos"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://insideretail.us/how-the-sephora-instagram-hack-exposed-metas-ai-weakness/","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"attacker-posted-videos"},{"id":"s10","url":"https://gizmodo.com/hackers-tricked-meta-ai-into-handing-out-access-to-major-instagram-accounts-2000766087","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"attacker-posted-videos"},{"id":"s11","url":"https://gizmodo.com/meta-says-thousands-of-instagram-accounts-were-breached-through-its-ai-support-assistant-2000768770","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-own-statements"},{"id":"s12","url":"https://about.fb.com/news/2026/03/boosting-your-support-and-safety-on-metas-apps-with-ai/","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-own-statements"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use","institutional_use"],"contexts":["privacy","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["How many people or organisations lost control of an account is not established. Meta's listing gives 20225 persons affected and the notice calls the Maine figure an upper bound, and the notice does not say how many accounts were organisational or how many were taken over.","Meta says it is unaware of what, if any, personal information was accessed. Whether any messages or data were read is unknown.","The start date rests on Meta's listing (17 April 2026), and the notice does not state its basis. 404 Media quotes a Telegram channel documenting the hack saying the exploits were 'getting abused after quietly working for months', and separately says that the same account originally posted in Telegram about the vulnerability 'at the end of March' (the year is not stated). Neither statement gives a start date for exploitation. Meta's announcement of 19 March 2026 says the support assistant was previewed 'in December' (year not stated in the passage) and that help with logging in was starting in select cases in the US and Canada, so no inspected source establishes the earliest date of exploitation.","The end date is Meta's date for disabling the tool (31 May 2026). TechCrunch reported unverified claims of continued exploitation on 3 June 2026.","The X posts, the Telegram videos and the Reddit complaints were not opened. Reporters' descriptions of them are used.","The notice does not say how many accounts were restored to their owners, and the listing shows 19 June 2026 as the date of consumer notification in a capture taken on 9 June 2026.","Figures of about 34,000 accounts targeted and a SimpliSafe account appeared only on an aggregator page that attributes the first figure to Meta without a citation and are not used."],"geography":{"basis":"Meta's notice to the Maine Attorney General counts 30 Maine users among those potentially impacted. The countries of the other affected people, the attackers (who reportedly used VPNs to appear in the target's location) and Meta's systems are not stated in the inspected sources, and the country of the named security researcher is not stated.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Meta's notice to the Maine Attorney General (a PDF read directly) and the Maine listing (an archived capture) document Meta's own account of the exploited AI-assisted tool, the dates and the affected count. Nine news reports and Meta's March announcement were read in full. The mechanism claim has two independent chains (Meta's filing and attacker-posted videos checked by TechCrunch). Harm to named account holders rests on their own statements or on reporters relaying attacker-posted screenshots, so those claims stay at reported status. Only one account holder who spoke publicly is named. The office holder is described by office only.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Meta's notice to the Maine Attorney General describes the affected system as an AI-assisted account recovery system (High Touch Support) and says it sent a password reset link to an email address not associated with the account. TechCrunch reports that no Meta employee or contractor took part in the exploit chats and checked one attacker mailbox for the code. Meta says the tool worked as intended, that the failure was a bug in a separate code path that did not verify the email address, and (to Gizmodo) that the failure was not due to the AI agent itself. Whether the AI component or the separate code path caused the failure is disputed and was not tested.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Third parties exploit Meta's AI-assisted Instagram account recovery tool to reset passwords, with account takeovers reported (17 April to 31 May 2026)","summary":"Meta announced the rollout of its AI support assistant on Facebook and Instagram on 19 March 2026. Meta's filing with the Maine Attorney General (notice dated 5 June 2026) says unauthorized third parties exploited a vulnerability in its AI-assisted Instagram account recovery tool (High Touch Support) to receive password reset links for accounts they did not own, and the listing gives 17 April 2026 as the breach date and 31 May 2026 as the discovery date. Videos that attackers posted, as described by TechCrunch, 404 Media and Krebs on Security, show attackers asking the assistant in a chat to link a new email address to a target username. Reported victims include the security researcher Jane Manchun Wong, who posted that her password was changed without her knowledge, the Instagram account of the U.S. Space Force's Chief Master Sergeant, and the accounts of Sephora and a dormant Obama White House page (TechCrunch marks the last as disputed by Meta). Krebs and the BBC report pro-Iran defacement of some accounts, and TechCrunch reports that some victims were locked out and that short handles were offered for resale. The filing gives 20225 persons affected in total and 30 in Maine, and the notice calls the Maine figure an upper bound. Meta says the tool worked as intended, that a bug in a separate code path failed to check the email address, and (through a spokesperson to Gizmodo) that the failure was not due to the AI agent itself. Meta says it disabled the tool on 31 May 2026, the day it discovered the exploitation.","incidentDate":"2026-04-17","incidentEndDate":"2026-05-31","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-06-01","aiSystem":"Meta AI support assistant / High Touch Support (AI-assisted Instagram account recovery tool)","aiProduct":"Meta AI support assistant","aiCompany":"Meta","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Reporters and Meta's notice report that third parties reset passwords on Instagram accounts and, where the account had no two-factor authentication, could log in. A named security researcher reports her password was changed without her knowledge and that reinstating the account took about five to ten minutes. Krebs on Security and the BBC report that some high-profile accounts were briefly defaced, TechCrunch reports that some victims were locked out and that short handles were offered for resale, and Meta says it does not know what personal information, if any, was accessed. Meta's filing gives 20225 persons affected in total, and its notice calls the Maine figure an upper bound.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Two account holders are counted: the security researcher who posted that her account was taken over, and the office holder whose Instagram account TechCrunch and Krebs on Security report as compromised. TechCrunch's 3 June article says this account 'appeared to be' among the victims, no statement from the office holder or from Meta about this account was inspected, and whether it is a personal or an official account is not stated. Sephora and the Obama White House account are organisational or institutional accounts and are not counted. Other victims (everyday users, short-handle holders) are unquantified. Meta's listing of 20225 persons affected is not counted: the notice calls the Maine figure an upper bound and does not say how many accounts were taken over or how many were organisational.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.maine.gov/cgi-bin/agviewerad/ret?loc=4169","primarySourceLabel":"Meta incident notification to the Maine Attorney General (5 June 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:16:54.181323+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:45.477765+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]},{"id":"2026-us-meta-26-employees-sue-alleging-ai-assisted-may-layoff-selection-penalized-protected-leave","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"OAKLAND DIVISION","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Filed 07/13/26","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on July 13, 2026, bringing claims against Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A group of 26 Meta employees has sued the company, claiming it used artificial intelligence systems to select people for layoffs, disproportionately targeting those on medical, parental or family leave.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 13 July 2026 twenty-six anonymous plaintiffs (Does 1 through 26) filed a complaint against Meta Platforms, Inc. in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland division, alleging employment discrimination in the May 2026 reduction in force.","causal_attribution":"The filing of the complaint is documented by the court record. The complaint establishes only the plaintiffs’ allegations."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"artificial-intelligence-assisted systems to score, rank, and select employees for inclusion","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"algorithmic productivity scoring drawn from keystroke, screen-content, mouse,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The parties dispute whether Meta utilized AI in deciding to terminate plaintiffs’","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"They claim that Meta used a number of internal AI-assisted systems to score and rank employees on a termination list.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used a set of internal AI-assisted systems to score, rank and select employees for the termination list: the Metamate internal large-language-model assistant, employee-trained \"second brain\" agents, keystroke and other activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance ranking and calibration.","causal_attribution":"These are the plaintiffs’ allegations, pleaded on information and belief and supported by plaintiff declarations that were not inspected (they are quoted in the complaint and the order). Meta disputes them (claim c4). The news reports and the court order restate the complaint and are one reporting chain with it."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"be accumulated by an employee who is on protected medical or family leave, or whose","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"protected-leave-takers or accommodation-seekers for individualized human review. Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On information and belief, Meta did not neutralize any of the foregoing inputs for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"result was that employees who took protected leaves were disproportionately selected for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Plaintiffs are twenty-six current and former Meta employees, each of whom Meta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"selected for separation in the RIF, and each of whom","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"About half the plaintiffs had taken leave for caregiving or pregnancy-related reasons.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that the inputs to these systems cannot be accumulated by an employee on protected medical, family or parental leave, that Meta did not neutralise them for protected leave, and that employees who took protected leave were therefore disproportionately selected for layoff. It states that each plaintiff was selected for separation in the reduction in force and had, within the 24 months before it, taken, requested or been approved for protected leave, or requested or received a disability accommodation.","causal_attribution":"Allegation of the plaintiffs. The court found on 17 July 2026 only serious questions going to the merits and no likelihood of success on that record (claim c5). Whether any AI system affected any plaintiff’s selection is unresolved."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Workforce management and organizational decisions were and are made by people, not AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"selection decisions in the RIF were “made by human","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"promotion history over a defined period. There was no AI-","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"was selected based on leave status, disability, or any other protected characteristic,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"“selection decision [was] made by ‘AI.’” Id. ¶ 11.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Selection decisions were made by human business leaders","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"defined period. There was no AI-assisted “scoring” or “ranking” related to employee","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"guidance does not permit AI adoption and usage metrics to be used as negative factors in","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"performance reviews in 2025 or as selection criteria in the RIF.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Meta denies the allegations. A Meta spokesperson said workforce management and organisational decisions were made by people, not AI. In declarations filed by a Meta human-resources director, Meta states that selection decisions were made by human business leaders using documented neutral criteria, that no AI-assisted scoring or ranking of employee performance was used, that no plaintiff was selected on the basis of leave status or disability, and that no selection decision was made by AI.","causal_attribution":"Meta’s statements and declarations about its own process. They are a party account and had been tested only through briefing and court hearings (claims c5 and c7), not in discovery."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"described below, the TRO is DENIED.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The parties dispute whether Meta utilized AI in deciding to terminate plaintiffs’","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, but rather a “serious question[]”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Loss of health care, employment, protected leave, and unvested restricted stock units (“RSUs”) are","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Loss of immigration status is different. Four of the plaintiffs have employment-based,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"they were not in the rooms where it happened.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 17 July 2026 the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. The order records that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in deciding to terminate the plaintiffs, finds serious questions going to the merits but no shown likelihood of success on that record, finds that loss of health care, employment, protected leave and unvested equity can be remedied in arbitration, and treats the possible loss of immigration status for four plaintiffs with Meta-sponsored visas as a potentially irreparable harm that needed more information.","causal_attribution":"A court order establishes what the court ruled and recorded. It does not establish that AI was or was not used in the selection."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On May 20, 2026, Meta began notifying the selected employees by email, beginning with","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"finalized on or about July 22, 2026 (and on or about August 20, 2026 for New York","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"laid off on May 20, 2026.” Complaint (“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1] ¶ 45 (the “mass reduction in force”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Though they have been notified of their layoffs, all 26 remain employed by Meta, with separations set to begin July 22.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"Meta in May notified nearly 8,000 employees, or about 10% of its global workforce, that they were losing their jobs","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"Laid-off workers remain on the payroll but lost access to Meta systems on May 20","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Meta began notifying employees selected in the reduction in force on 20 May 2026 (about 8,000 employees, roughly 10 percent of its workforce). The complaint says the plaintiffs were notified of their selection from that date, and that separations were scheduled for about 22 July 2026 (later for some plaintiffs). Meta said in court filings that laid-off workers stayed on the payroll but lost access to Meta systems on 20 May.","causal_attribution":"The notification date and the scheduled separation dates come from the complaint and Meta court filings as relayed by Reuters. The sources inspected do not report whether each separation took place on its scheduled date, although Courthouse News called the plaintiffs former employees on 24 August 2026."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction conducted via videoconference. The Court","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"summarizes tentative. Argument of counsel heard. Motion taken under submission; written order","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"I have a record I have to deal with and the record at the moment does not persuade me of the merits","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"categorical denial of any impact of AI in the termination process","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"whether what plaintiffs think happened, happened","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"}],"assertion":"The court held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion on 24 August 2026, heard argument and took the motion under submission with a written order to follow. Courthouse News reports that the judge said the record at that time did not persuade the judge of the merits, that the plaintiffs’ evidence raised some potential questions about Meta’s categorical denial of any impact of AI in the termination process, and that the case turns on whether what plaintiffs think happened, happened.","causal_attribution":"The minute entry documents that the hearing occurred and the motion was taken under submission. The judge’s remarks are reported by one news outlet and the transcript was not inspected. No written ruling on the preliminary injunction was found as of 29 September 2026."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"and only Plaintiff Doe 20, hereby voluntarily dismisses","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"},{"locator":"remain parties and continue to prosecute this action","relation":"supports","source_id":"s10"},{"locator":"Doe 20 was voluntarily dismissed from this action on August 3, 2026 pursuant to Federal","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"is made on behalf of Doe 20, and no relief is sought on Doe 20’s behalf.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"One plaintiff (Doe 20) voluntarily dismissed all of that plaintiff’s claims without prejudice on 3 August 2026 (Dkt. 33), and the notice states that Does 1 through 19 and 21 through 26 remain parties. No reason is given in the notice.","causal_attribution":"A filing by the plaintiffs’ counsel records the dismissal. It does not say whether that plaintiff was selected in the reduction in force or why the dismissal was made."},{"id":"c9","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"They recognize that their claims must be arbitrated, and they have initiated arbitration proceedings","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"with the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Here, they seek a temporary restraining order:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"while they pursue their claims in private arbitration","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"from this Court only the status-quo-preserving provisional relief that Meta’s own","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"G. Reserve to the arbitral forum all relief on the merits, including but not limited to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The 17 July 2026 order records that the plaintiffs recognize their claims must be arbitrated and that they have initiated arbitration proceedings with the American Arbitration Association. The complaint says the plaintiffs seek from the court only status-quo-preserving provisional relief pending an independent audit of the selection process and arbitration of the merits, and it reserves merits relief such as reinstatement, back pay and damages to the arbitral forum.","causal_attribution":"The order records the plaintiffs’ own statement about their arbitration filings. The arbitration itself is confidential and its progress is unknown."}],"effects":[{"label":"Employees on or after protected leave allegedly disproportionately selected for layoff by an AI-assisted process that did not account for leave (disputed by Meta)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Plaintiffs notified of selection for termination on 20 May 2026, with separations scheduled from 22 July 2026 and possible loss of health coverage, unvested equity and (for four plaintiffs) work-visa status","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.25.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.42.1_1.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-court-declarations"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.46.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.49.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/26-meta-workers-sue-ai-aided-layoffs-medical-family-leave/","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-complaint"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jul/17/us-judge-wont-block-meta-from-laying-off-workers-w/","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"reuters-tro-coverage"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/meta-workers-claiming-ai-fired-them-unlikely-to-see-relief/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"courthouse-news-hearing"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.31.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"meta-court-declarations"},{"id":"s10","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.33.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","health"],"unknowns":["Whether any AI system scored, ranked or selected any plaintiff is unresolved. The complaint pleads it on information and belief. Meta denies it in declarations. No discovery had occurred in the sources inspected, and the judge said on 17 July 2026 that plaintiffs were not in the rooms where the selections happened.","The sources inspected do not show how many people beyond the plaintiffs were selected because of leave, or how many of the roughly 8,000 laid-off employees were scored by any AI-assisted system. Only the plaintiffs are counted as reported harmed.","The order on the preliminary injunction motion (argued 24 August 2026, taken under submission) had not been found by 29 September 2026. The hearing remarks were read only through one news report and the transcript was not inspected.","Whether each plaintiff’s separation took place on its scheduled date (22 July 2026 for most, later for some) is not stated in the sources inspected. Reuters and CBS/AP describe the plaintiffs as still employed in July, and Courthouse News called them former employees on 24 August 2026.","One plaintiff (Doe 20) was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026 and no reason is stated. The affected count therefore uses 25.","The complaint and declarations contain individual medical, pregnancy and immigration details. They are anonymised in the public copies and are deliberately not described here.","Reuters and WSJ pages for the initial filing could not be read (HTTP 401). Reuters coverage of the 17 July ruling was read through a Spokesman-Review copy. The Law.com article was behind a subscription wall and was not cited.","The complaint alleges that data captured by a separate Meta employee-monitoring program (the Model Capability Initiative) supplied inputs to the selection process, and Meta denies that AI was used in the selection. That program’s own privacy and security consequences are a different event, recorded as 2026-meta-mci-us-employee-keystroke-and-screen-capture-for-ai-training-then-internal-data-exposure, and are not part of this record."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint states that the plaintiffs worked in California, Illinois, Washington, New York, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania and Florida and the suit is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Meta also notified employees in other countries in the same reduction in force, but no plaintiff outside the US is described.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The complaint, the court order denying the temporary restraining order, two Meta declarations, the plaintiffs’ notice of dismissal of one plaintiff and the hearing minute entry were read from the court record (CourtListener copies), with CBS/AP, Reuters and Courthouse News reports. Every AI-related statement is attributed. The plaintiffs are anonymous in the record and are not described individually. Meta denies that AI made or informed any selection decision and the court has not resolved the dispute.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used internal AI-assisted systems (Metamate, second-brain agents, activity-monitoring scoring, AI-token-usage dashboards, algorithmic ranking and calibration) to score, rank and select employees for the 20 May 2026 termination list. Meta’s declarations say selection decisions were made by human business leaders and that there was no AI-assisted scoring or ranking related to employee performance, and the court described the declarations as saying Meta did not use AI in any way with respect to the RIF. The court recorded that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in deciding to terminate the plaintiffs and found on 17 July 2026 that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the current record. On 24 August 2026 the judge said the plaintiffs’ evidence raised some potential questions about Meta’s categorical denial. No discovery had tested Meta’s account in the sources inspected.","status":"disputed"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: 26 Meta employees sue alleging an AI-assisted May 2026 layoff selection penalized workers on protected leave, Meta says people made the decisions","summary":"On 20 May 2026 Meta began notifying about 8,000 employees (roughly 10 percent of its workforce) that they had been selected for layoff. On 13 July 2026 twenty-six anonymous employees who had taken or requested medical, pregnancy, parental or family leave, or a disability accommodation, sued Meta in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used internal AI-assisted systems (including the Metamate assistant, keystroke and activity monitoring, AI-token-usage dashboards and algorithmic performance ranking) to score, rank and select employees, and that these inputs could not accumulate during protected leave, so plaintiffs on leave were disproportionately selected. Meta says workforce decisions were made by people, not AI, and that no selection decision was made by AI. On 17 July 2026 the court denied a temporary restraining order, recording that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in the terminations and finding serious questions on the merits but no shown likelihood of success. One plaintiff was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026. The preliminary injunction motion was argued on 24 August 2026 and taken under submission. The plaintiffs are pursuing their merits claims in arbitration and the allegations are unproven.","incidentDate":"2026-05-20","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-07-14","aiSystem":"Meta internal AI-assisted systems alleged in the complaint: the Metamate internal LLM assistant, employee-trained \"second brain\" agents, keystroke and activity-monitoring productivity scoring, AI-token-usage dashboards and AI-assisted performance calibration (Meta denies AI was used in selecting employees for the layoff)","aiProduct":"Meta internal AI systems (reported)","aiCompany":"Meta Platforms, Inc.","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"disputed","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The complaint alleges that 26 employees were selected for termination in Meta’s May 2026 reduction in force through an AI-assisted process that penalised protected leave, with separations scheduled from 22 July 2026 and asserted losses of employer-subsidised health coverage, unvested equity and, for four plaintiffs, work-visa status. Meta denies that AI was used in the selections. The court found the alleged harms other than immigration status remediable in arbitration and has not decided the merits.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":25,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The complaint states that each of 26 plaintiffs was selected for separation in the May 2026 reduction in force. One plaintiff was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026 without a stated reason, so 25 active plaintiffs are counted as a documented minimum. The roughly 8,000 other employees notified in the reduction in force are not counted because no source ties their selection to the alleged AI process.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.474171/gov.uscourts.cand.474171.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Complaint, Does 1 through 26 v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (N.D. Cal., filed 13 Jul 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:16:06.345461+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:57.733761+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]},{"id":"2025-ar-esquel-criminal-judgment-annulled-judge-generative-ai-draft","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"decidió el miércoles anular de oficio una sentencia dictada el 4 de junio pasado","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"anular de oficio una sentencia porque el juez la delegó en un ChatGPT","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"La sentencia anulada había condenado al imputado a dos años y seis meses de prisión efectiva por robo simple","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 4 June 2025 a criminal judge in Esquel convicted a defendant of simple robbery and sentenced the defendant to two years and six months of effective imprisonment, and the Penal Chamber of Esquel later annulled that judgment.","causal_attribution":"Sources give the annulment as the chamber's response to the judge's AI use."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Aquí tienes el punto IV reeditado, sin citas y listo para copiar y pegar","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"el magistrado utilizó la IA generativa, ni más ni menos, que en un aspecto central de la resolución en crisis como es la resolución de las nulidades de dos pruebas esenciales en el proceso","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"el juez de primera instancia incluyó accidentalmente una frase que revela el uso de un asistente de Inteligencia Artificial (IA) generativa","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The judgment contained the phrase “Aquí tienes el punto IV reeditado, sin citas y listo para copiar y pegar”, which the chamber took to show generative-AI use, including on the rulings on the nullity of two essential pieces of evidence.","causal_attribution":"The chamber's finding, as quoted in the press, connects the phrase to AI use. The full ruling text was not read."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"anular tanto la sentencia como el juicio que la precedió","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"declaración de nulidad de la sentencia y del juicio que la precede, con todo lo que ello significa para los justiciables","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"ordenando que el proceso se realice nuevamente con la intervención de otro magistrado","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"el tribunal ordenó reenviar el caso a otro juez penal, prohibiendo al Ministerio Público Fiscal exhibir en el nuevo juicio los videos omitidos en el anterior","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A raíz de esto deberá realizarse nuevamente el juicio, con otro juez","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The chamber annulled the judgment and the preceding trial and ordered a new trial before another judge, and barred the prosecution from showing at the new trial the videos omitted at the first.","causal_attribution":"The annulment is attributed by the chamber to the judge's undisclosed and unsupervised AI use, which the chamber said prevented control of the judge's reasoning."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"remitir las actuaciones al Superior Tribunal de Justicia de Chubut (STJ), que deberá investigar el alcance ético y disciplinario de la conducta","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"pudo haber incumplido los recaudos de confidencialidad exigidos por el Acuerdo Plenario N° 5435 del STJ, al incluir nombres de las partes, testigos y peritos en el texto procesado por el asistente","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The chamber referred the matter to the Chubut Superior Court of Justice to investigate the judge's conduct and said the judge may have breached that court's confidentiality rules by including the names of parties, witnesses and experts in the text processed by the assistant.","causal_attribution":"The confidentiality point is the chamber's stated possibility and was not established as fact."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"presumiblemente ChatGPT","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"el juez la delegó en un ChatGPT","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Press coverage identifies the assistant as ChatGPT (La Nación as presumed, Perfil without qualification).","causal_attribution":"The ruling as quoted refers to a generative-AI assistant. The product name comes from the press."}],"effects":[{"label":"Conviction and trial annulled and retrial ordered; the chamber cites serious consequences for the parties","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/el-juez-de-esquel-que-uso-chat-para-redactar-una-sentencia-sera-investigado-nid17102025/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Full body read in the original Spanish (17 October 2025) by the reviewing agent without a human translator. Reports the appellate ruling; whether the journalist saw the ruling text is not stated.","independence_group":"esquel-camara-ruling"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://documento.errepar.com/actualidad/justicia-anulada-se-invalida-un-fallo-por-el-uso-indebido-de-la-ia-20251016143159365","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Article body is embedded in the page data and was decoded into bodies/gh-4-body.txt (16 October 2025). Read in Spanish without a human translator. It quotes the ruling. The linked full text of the ruling (documento.errepar.com/jurisprudencia/...) is gated and was not read.","independence_group":"esquel-camara-ruling"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.perfil.com/noticias/nea/inteligencia-artificial-anulan-sentencia-porque-un-juez-uso-un-chatgpt-y-una-frase-lo-delato.phtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Full body read in Spanish (17 October 2025) without a human translator. It relays a statement of the Ministerio Publico Fiscal of Chubut and quotes the ruling.","independence_group":"esquel-camara-ruling"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The full text of the ruling was not read (the Errepar copy is gated), so all findings are as reported by three outlets that share the same underlying ruling.","The share of the judgment written by the assistant is unknown. The chamber said the pasted text leaves a gap too wide to tell.","The specific AI product is not established. No chat log was seen.","The annulment date of 15 October 2025 is derived from La Nación's 'el miércoles' (article of 17 October 2025) and the metadata of a gated Errepar ruling page; no cited article states the date.","The outcome of the Superior Court review and the date of the new trial are not reported in the sources read.","The defendant's own view of the annulment and any effect of the delay on the defendant or on other parties to the case is not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"The court is the Penal Chamber of Esquel in Chubut province, and La Nación calls the ground for the annulment unprecedented in Argentine justice. The defendant's residence and where the judge used the assistant are not stated.","court_countries":["AR"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Three Spanish-language outlets report the same appellate ruling, which annulled a criminal judgment and trial after a pasted assistant phrase exposed undisclosed generative-AI use. The chamber's stated consequences for the parties (annulment and a repeated trial) are reported, and the effect on the defendant is not. The outlets share one reporting chain, so claims are attributed.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The appellate chamber, as quoted by three outlets, found a pasted chat phrase in the ruling and concluded that a generative-AI assistant was used. The chamber described delegation of the decision as probable. The product name ChatGPT is stated by one outlet as presumed and by another without qualification.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Argentina: appellate chamber annuls a robbery judgment and trial after the trial judge left a generative-AI chat phrase in the ruling","summary":"On 4 June 2025 a criminal judge in Esquel, Chubut province, convicted a defendant of simple robbery and imposed two years and six months of effective imprisonment. On 15 October 2025 the Penal Chamber of Esquel annulled the judgment and the trial, ordering a new trial before another judge. The chamber found that the ruling contained a pasted phrase from a generative-AI assistant (“Aquí tienes el punto IV reeditado, sin citas y listo para copiar y pegar”), that the AI had been used on the rulings on the nullity of two essential pieces of evidence, and that the judge had not exercised human supervision or recorded the use. Perfil's headline describes the assistant as ChatGPT and La Nación's text as presumably ChatGPT; the quoted ruling and the prosecution office statement refer only to a generative-AI assistant. The chamber referred the judge's conduct to the Chubut Superior Court of Justice for ethical and disciplinary review.","incidentDate":"2025-06-04","incidentEndDate":"2025-10-15","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-10-16","aiSystem":"Generative AI assistant (reported as ChatGPT)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Per press reports of the appellate ruling, the trial and conviction were annulled because of the judge's undisclosed generative-AI use and the case must be tried again before another judge. The chamber described serious consequences of this for the parties, the public and the State. The effect on the defendant is not reported and the annulment may favour the defendant.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"unquantified","affectedCountEvidence":"The chamber refers to serious consequences of the annulment for 'los justiciables' (the parties to the proceeding), the public and the State without a count. No inspected source reports harm to the defendant specifically, and annulment of a conviction may be favourable to the defendant.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/el-juez-de-esquel-que-uso-chat-para-redactar-una-sentencia-sera-investigado-nid17102025/","primarySourceLabel":"La Nación, 'El juez de Esquel que usó Chat para redactar una sentencia será investigado', 17 October 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T12:42:03.091102+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:55.894793+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2026-orelien-goncourt-selection-removed-ai-detector-accusation","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Le 21 septembre, le compte « Balance ton Claude », jusque-là peu connu, affirme avoir soumis plusieurs extraits de C’était ça ou mourir au logiciel américain Pangram, spécialisé dans la détection de textes potentiellement générés par intelligence artificielle. Certains passages auraient obtenu des scores allant jusqu’à 100 % de probabilité de génération par IA.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Les premières accusations ont été portées lundi par un compte anonyme sur X, mettant en avant le verdict du détecteur d'IA Pangram. L'essayiste Samuel Fitoussi a confirmé vendredi être derrière ce compte, Balance ton Claude, assurant n'être qu'un des membres d'un collectif.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The accusation began when an anonymous X account, Balance ton Claude, said it had run excerpts of the novel through the Pangram AI-detection software, with some passages scoring up to 100 per cent probability of AI generation; essayist Samuel Fitoussi later said he was one of the people behind the account.","causal_attribution":"Account of how the accusation arose, as reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'L'Académie Goncourt a annoncé, vendredi 25 septembre, la \"suppression\" du roman C'était ça ou mourir de Thélyson Orélien de sa première sélection'; 'L'ouvrage \"est selon toute vraisemblance très largement le produit d'une intelligence artificielle\", justifie-t-elle après plusieurs jours de polémique, expliquant se reposer sur le \"résultat convergent de plusieurs analyses de chercheurs et journalistes dignes de foi\".'; 'L'Académie Goncourt justifie également sa décision par \"des plagiats dont son auteur s'est rendu coupable au fil du temps et qui viennent d'être révélés\", qui ne concernent pas son roman mais au moins une nouvelle et des articles publiés au Canada.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'L'Académie Goncourt a annoncé vendredi qu'elle retirait le roman de l'auteur canado-haïtien Thélyson Orélien de sa sélection pour le prix Goncourt en raison des accusations de plagiat et d'utilisation de l'intelligence artificielle (IA) le visant.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 25 September 2026 the Académie Goncourt removed the novel from its first selection, stating that it is in all likelihood very largely the product of an artificial intelligence on the basis of several analyses by researchers and journalists, and also citing plagiarism by the author in older texts published in Canada that do not concern the novel.","causal_attribution":"The Académie's stated reasons combine AI analyses and plagiarism findings; the weight given to the Pangram results is not stated. The communiqué itself was not read directly."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'L'écrivain canado-haïtien conteste avoir eu recours à l'intelligence artificielle, et a dénoncé jeudi une \"volonté\" de le \"faire taire\".'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Il explique que son style, marqué notamment par les répétitions et certains rythmes propres à son univers linguistique et culturel, pourrait être interprété à tort par des outils automatisés.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Orélien denies using artificial intelligence to write the novel and says its repetitions and rhythms reflect his linguistic and cultural background and may be misread by automated tools.","causal_attribution":"The author's denial; the Académie and the accusers maintain the contrary. No decisive evidence either way is reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Les éditions du Boréal, basées à Montréal, ont annoncé suspendre \"les activités promotionnelles\" autour du livre'; '\"Malheureusement, il nous est impossible à ce stade-ci d'infirmer ou de confirmer les allégations auxquelles l'auteur fait face\", a expliqué Boréal'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Au Canada, les Éditions du Boréal ont suspendu les activités promotionnelles entourant le roman'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"His Montreal publisher, Éditions du Boréal, suspended promotional activities around the book, saying it could neither confirm nor refute the allegations.","causal_attribution":"Publisher statement as reported; the suspension followed both the AI and plagiarism allegations."}],"effects":[{"label":"novel removed from the Goncourt prize selection after accusations, based partly on AI-detector scores, that it was largely AI-generated","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"publisher suspended promotion of the book pending the allegations","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.franceinfo.fr/culture/livres/le-roman-de-thelyson-orelien-supprime-de-la-selection-du-prix-goncourt-en-raison-de-soupcons-de-recours-a-l-intelligence-artificielle-et-d-accusations-de-plagiats_8209475.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read live in French on 2026-09-28; bylined 'franceinfo avec AFP'. Quotes the Académie communiqué. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"goncourt-communique-afp"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.rts.ch/info/culture/livres/2026/article/thelyson-orelien-l-essayiste-samuel-fitoussi-dit-avoir-lance-la-polemique-29367142.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read live in French on 2026-09-28 (25 September 2026). No wire credit visible in the saved text but the account parallels the AFP copy; treated as the same chain. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"goncourt-communique-afp"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.juno7.ht/thelyson-orelien-polemique-ia-goncourt-pangram/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read live in French on 2026-09-28 (26 September 2026). A Haitian synthesis of published reporting with no independent sourcing; treated as the same chain. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"goncourt-communique-afp"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://t24.com.tr/dunya/odullu-yazarin-romanina-yapay-zek-suclamasi-adayliktan-cikarildi,1350116","kind":"news_relay","access":"read","language":"tr","translation_note":"Read live in Turkish on 2026-09-28 (27 September 2026); relay of the same reporting. Researcher translation.","independence_group":"goncourt-communique-afp"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Whether generative AI was used to write the novel; the author denies it.","Which analyses by researchers and journalists the Académie relied on, and how much weight it gave the Pangram scores relative to the plagiarism findings.","The novel's status on the Femina, Médicis and Renaudot lists after the Goncourt decision.","The author's own account of personal or financial effects beyond the public statements reported."],"geography":{"basis":"The decision was taken by the Académie Goncourt for the French literary prize (franceinfo) while the author was in France promoting the book (RTS). The author is described as Canadian-Haitian and his publisher is in Montreal, but his country of residence is not stated in the read sources, so no affected-person country is recorded.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["FR"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case (an AI-detection tool's output about his text launched public accusations of AI authorship, and the Académie Goncourt then removed his novel, citing unnamed analyses finding it probably AI-generated as well as separate plagiarism). AI authorship is disputed and unproven, and the decision also rested on separate plagiarism findings; the record states both. The author is a public figure; all read sources derive from the same public statements and AFP-led reporting.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-28"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Pangram AI-detection software was used by the accusing account to score excerpts of the novel as AI-generated (franceinfo; RTS; juno7). That generative AI was used to write the novel is disputed: the author denies it. The Académie relied on unspecified analyses by researchers and journalists, not solely on Pangram.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"France: the Académie Goncourt removes Thélyson Orélien's bestselling novel from its prize selection, saying it is in all likelihood largely AI-generated, days after an anonymous X account publicised Pangram AI-detector scores; the author denies using AI, and the Académie also cites separate plagiarism in his older texts","summary":"On 21 September 2026 an anonymous X account, Balance ton Claude, said it had run excerpts of Thélyson Orélien's debut novel C'était ça ou mourir through the American AI-detection software Pangram, with some passages scoring up to 100 per cent probability of AI generation. On 25 September the Académie Goncourt removed the novel from the first selection of sixteen books for its 2026 prize, stating that the work is 'in all likelihood very largely the product of an artificial intelligence', based on 'the convergent result of several analyses by researchers and journalists', and also citing plagiarism in older texts by the author published in Canada (at least one short story and articles), which do not concern the novel. Orélien, a 38-year-old Canadian-Haitian writer whose novel had won the Fnac novel prize, denies using AI and says its repetitions and certain rhythms reflect his linguistic and cultural world and may be misread by automated tools. His Montreal publisher Boréal suspended promotional activities, saying it could neither confirm nor refute the allegations. Essayist Samuel Fitoussi said he was one of the people behind the account. Whether AI was used to write the novel is disputed; AI-detector reliability is itself contested in the coverage.","incidentDate":"2026-09-21","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-25","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-25","aiSystem":"Pangram, an AI-text detection tool, used by the Balance ton Claude account to score excerpts of the novel (juno7; RTS; franceinfo); the alleged use of a generative-AI model to write the novel is denied by the author and unproven","aiProduct":"Pangram AI-text detector","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"disputed","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The author's novel was removed from the Goncourt prize selection and his publisher suspended its promotion after public accusations, based partly on AI-detector scores, that the book was largely AI-generated; he denies using AI and the Académie also cited separate plagiarism (franceinfo with AFP; RTS; juno7).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the author Thélyson Orélien, whose novel was removed from the selection (franceinfo; RTS). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"FR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.franceinfo.fr/culture/livres/le-roman-de-thelyson-orelien-supprime-de-la-selection-du-prix-goncourt-en-raison-de-soupcons-de-recours-a-l-intelligence-artificielle-et-d-accusations-de-plagiats_8209475.html","primarySourceLabel":"franceinfo (with AFP), 25 September 2026: Le roman de Thélyson Orélien supprimé de la sélection du prix Goncourt en raison de soupçons de recours à l'intelligence artificielle et d'accusations de plagiats","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-28T03:31:42.415125+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:48.719742+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-detection","ai-detector-accusation","literary-prize","goncourt","pangram","france","disputed","made-claim-about"]},{"id":"2026-evans-santos-v-draftkings-ai-personalization-gambling-addiction","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"EVANS VS DRAFTKINGS INC. ETAL\"; \"Filing Date: Friday , July 24th, 2026\"; \"Case ID: 260702927\"; \"Case 2:26-cv-07168 Document 1-3 Filed 09/16/26\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"docketNumber \"2:26-cv-07168\", court \"paed\", dateFiled \"2026-09-16\", \"NOTICE OF REMOVAL by CROWN PA GAMING, INC., DRAFTKINGS INC.\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Christopher Evans filed a product-liability complaint against DraftKings Inc. and Crown PA Gaming in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on 24 July 2026 (Case ID 260702927); the defendants removed it to the E.D. Pa. on 16 September 2026 as 2:26-cv-07168.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court record (state docket report and federal removal filing)."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHESTER COUNTY\"; \"29 Jul 2026 03:54 PM\"; \"MICHAEL SANTOS,\"; \"2026-07200-TT\"; \"Case 2:26-cv-07176 Document 1-3 Filed 09/16/26\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"docketNumber \"2:26-cv-07176\", court \"paed\", dateFiled \"2026-09-16\", \"NOTICE OF REMOVAL by FANDUEL INC., FLUTTER ENTERTAINMENT, PLC, BETFAIR INTERACTIVE US LLC, FANDUEL GROUP PARENT LLC, FANDUEL PA LLC\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Michael Santos filed a complaint against DraftKings, Crown PA Gaming, FanDuel Inc. and FanDuel's affiliates in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas on 29 July 2026 (2026-07200-TT); the FanDuel defendants removed it to the E.D. Pa. on 16 September 2026 as 2:26-cv-07176.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court record."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"He began using the DraftKings applications in or around August 2017\"; \"Plaintiff has wagered over $2,100,000.00 with net losses of approximately $81,000.00\"; \"constantly received targeted promotions, personalized push notifications, and incentives like prop bets and free credits intended to repetitively lure him back into the gambling applications\"; \"also had a VIP account manager, who would send him promotional offers, bonuses, and perks\"; \"He soon began suffering from depression and anxiety and stopped going outside altogether in favor of gambling all day\"; \"creating financial strain that has placed him into debt and resulted in the repossession of his vehicle\"; \"resulted in his wife separating from him\"; \"was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Evans pleads that since about August 2017 he wagered over US$2,100,000 on DraftKings' apps with net losses of about US$81,000, constantly received targeted promotions and personalised push notifications and had a VIP account manager, developed depression and anxiety and was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020, stopped going outside, fell into debt, had his vehicle repossessed and separated from his wife.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegations in a pending complaint; untested."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"has wagered over $1,164,000.00 with net losses of approximately $58,000.00\"; \"has wagered nearly $7,000 on FanDuel with losses of nearly $1,500\"; \"constantly received targeted advertisements, personalized push notifications, and incentive-based emails from DraftKings intended to repetitively lure him back into the gambling app\"; \"despite Plaintiff expressly stating he did not want to continue gambling\"; \"max out multiple credit cards and accrue debt so significant that it forced him to sell his house\"; \"has received formal diagnoses of depression and anxiety\"; \"drove Plaintiff MICHAEL SANTOS to suicidal ideation\"; \"voluntarily placed himself on a self-exclusion list with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Santos pleads that he wagered over US$1,164,000 on DraftKings with net losses of about US$58,000 and nearly US$7,000 on FanDuel with losses of nearly US$1,500, received targeted advertisements, personalised push notifications and incentive emails, had a VIP manager who kept offering bonus bets after he said he wanted to stop, maxed out multiple credit cards and was forced to sell his house, received diagnoses of depression and anxiety, experienced suicidal ideation, and self-excluded with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiff's allegations in a pending complaint; untested."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"\"Defendants utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users and continuously lure them back to their sports gambling apps\"; \"data science and machine learning to help optimize conversion\"; \"recommendation engines\"; \"Defendants operate sophisticated AI-powered engagement platforms that, on information and belief, employ the precise personalization mechanisms the study identifies as risk-generating\"; \"Limit or eliminating artificial intelligence to track individual\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"\"Defendants utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users\"; \"Limiting or eliminating artificial intelligence to track individual\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Both complaints allege that the defendants combine artificial intelligence with tracking of personalised user data to addict users and lure them back, that DraftKings' 10-K discloses machine-learning recommendation engines, and, on information and belief, that the defendants operate AI-powered engagement platforms; both ask the court to limit or eliminate the use of artificial intelligence to track individual users.","causal_attribution":"The contents of the pleadings are established by the record; the truth of the AI allegations is not."}],"effects":[{"label":"two plaintiffs plead gambling addiction, six-figure wagering with net losses of about US$81,000 and US$58,000, debt, family breakdown, depression and suicidal ideation, attributed to AI-driven personalization","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662095/gov.uscourts.paed.662095.1.3.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-17 and 2026-09-19: Exhibit A to the notice of removal in Evans v. DraftKings Inc., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07168 (47 pages: the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas docket report and the complaint of 24 July 2026), from the CourtListener RECAP archive.","independence_group":"evans-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662118/gov.uscourts.paed.662118.1.3.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-19: Exhibit A to the notice of removal in Santos v. DraftKings Inc., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07176 (53 pages: the complaint filed and attested in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas on 29 July 2026), from the CourtListener RECAP archive.","independence_group":"santos-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74801358/evans-v-draftkings-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket metadata read on 2026-09-19 through the CourtListener v4 search API (saved as cl-evans.json): case name, docket number 2:26-cv-07168, court E.D. Pa., filed 2026-09-16, cause 28:1332 diversity product liability, removal notice by Crown PA Gaming and DraftKings.","independence_group":"courtlistener-evans-docket"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74803784/santos-v-draftkings-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Docket metadata read on 2026-09-19 through the CourtListener v4 search API (saved as cl-santos3.json): docket number 2:26-cv-07176, court E.D. Pa., filed 2026-09-16, removal notice by FanDuel Inc., Flutter Entertainment, Betfair Interactive US, FanDuel Group Parent and FanDuel PA.","independence_group":"courtlistener-santos-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","institutional_use"],"contexts":["finance","health","relationships","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether AI or machine-learning systems, rather than human account managers and conventional marketing, generated the promotions and notifications the plaintiffs describe; the 'AI-powered engagement platforms' allegation is pleaded on information and belief.","The defendants' responses; no answer, motion or ruling is recorded as of 2026-09-19.","When Santos began gambling on the apps and his current financial position.","Whether the plaintiffs also gambled on other operators' products."],"geography":{"basis":"Both plaintiffs are Pennsylvania residents (Philadelphia; Coatesville, Chester County) per the complaints; suits filed in Pennsylvania state courts and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case: two pending complaints, read in full from the court record, allege that an operator's AI-driven personalization and engagement systems fostered gambling addiction with quantified losses, debt, family breakdown, psychiatric diagnoses and suicidal ideation. Filing facts are documented; the harms and the AI involvement are the plaintiffs' allegations and are recorded as such. Plaintiffs are identified only by the public case captions.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaints allege that the defendants' AI and machine-learning personalization systems tracked the plaintiffs' play and targeted them with promotions and notifications, and quote DraftKings' 10-K on machine-learning recommendation engines; the 'AI-powered engagement platforms' allegation is pleaded on information and belief. Nothing in the record yet establishes that AI systems made the targeting decisions about these two users, so the relation (a system making decisions about the person) is recorded as alleged.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Pennsylvania: two men sued DraftKings (one also FanDuel) alleging that AI-driven personalization, targeted promotions and VIP handling fostered gambling addiction; they plead net losses of about US$81,000 and US$58,000, debt, family breakdown, depression and, in one case, suicidal ideation","summary":"Christopher Evans (Philadelphia; complaint filed 24 July 2026 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas) and Michael Santos (Coatesville, Chester County; complaint filed 29 July 2026 in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas) sued DraftKings and its Pennsylvania affiliate; Santos also sued FanDuel and its parents. Both product-liability complaints, filed by the same law firm, allege that the defendants' sports-betting, daily-fantasy and casino apps are designed to addict, and that the companies 'utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users', operating 'AI-powered engagement platforms' (pleaded on information and belief) and, per DraftKings' 10-K as quoted, 'data science and machine learning' recommendation engines. Evans pleads that since about August 2017 he wagered over US$2.1 million with net losses of about US$81,000, received constant targeted promotions and personalised push notifications and a VIP account manager, developed depression and anxiety and was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020, stopped going outside, fell into debt, had his vehicle repossessed and separated from his wife. Santos pleads over US$1.164 million wagered on DraftKings with net losses of about US$58,000 plus small FanDuel losses, targeted advertising and a VIP manager who kept offering bonus bets after he said he wanted to stop, maxed-out credit cards, the forced sale of his house, diagnoses of depression and anxiety, suicidal ideation, and self-exclusion with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023. Both cases were removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 16 September 2026 (2:26-cv-07168 and 2:26-cv-07176). The allegations are untested.","incidentDate":"2017-08-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-07-24","aiSystem":"DraftKings' and FanDuel's sportsbook, daily-fantasy and online-casino apps and their alleged AI and machine-learning personalization, recommendation and engagement systems (as pleaded; the complaints quote DraftKings' 10-K on 'data science and machine learning' and 'recommendation engines')","aiProduct":"DraftKings and FanDuel apps","aiCompany":"DraftKings Inc. (and Crown PA Gaming); FanDuel Inc. and affiliates (Flutter Entertainment) in the Santos suit","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","psychiatric_deterioration","relationship_disruption","property_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"As pleaded: gambling addiction with net losses of about US$81,000 (Evans) and about US$58,000 plus small FanDuel losses (Santos), debt, a repossessed vehicle and marital separation (Evans), maxed-out credit cards, a forced house sale, diagnosed depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation (Santos), attributed by the plaintiffs to the defendants' AI-driven personalization and engagement design.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":2,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two named plaintiffs, each pleading his own gambling addiction and losses as a user of the apps. Exact count of two; family members mentioned in the complaints are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662095/gov.uscourts.paed.662095.1.3.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Evans v. DraftKings Inc. et al., E.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-07168, Notice of Removal Exhibit A (Philadelphia CCP complaint filed 24 July 2026), via CourtListener RECAP","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-20T03:19:52.470392+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:36.906135+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["gambling","sports-betting","algorithmic-personalization","engagement-design","product-liability","lawsuit","united-states","pennsylvania","draftkings","fanduel","institutional-use"]},{"id":"2026-christi-hill-grok-false-officer-identification","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'Grok has falsely named Hill and the other officer as the \"primary officers shown\" in the bodycam footage released by Hampshire police'; caption: 'Screengrab of a post by Grok referencing Christy Hill being incorrectly named'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'she was wrongly identified by social media users and artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot Grok'; Hill 'criticised Grok ... for the \"chaos\" it caused by misidentifying her'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Grok falsely named Hill and another officer as the 'primary officers shown' in the bodycam footage of Nowak's arrest; the Guardian carries a screengrab of a Grok post incorrectly naming her.","causal_attribution":"The Guardian documents the Grok post with a screengrab; BBC Verify's interview independently carries her account of the Grok misidentification. What Grok answered to particular queries beyond the screengrabbed post is not documented."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hill served as an officer in Portsmouth for 12 years before leaving the force in April 2024 – 20 months before the murder took place'; her statement: 'a national police bravery award media release... is being repeatedly shared and misattributed to this case'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Hill said she left Hampshire Constabulary in April 2024 - more than a year before Nowak was fatally stabbed in December 2025'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The identification is factually impossible: Hill left Hampshire Constabulary in April 2024, more than a year before the December 2025 murder; the confusion stems from a national police bravery award photo of her and a former colleague being misattributed.","causal_attribution":"Her account, uncontested in the inspected sources; the bravery-award photo mechanism is her explanation, attributed."},{"id":"c3","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'forced to flee to a safe space'; Hampshire: 'A police officer unrelated to this case has been misidentified online and subject to death threats.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'scared for her safety and has been hiding in a safe house'; 'leading to \"threats of violence\"'; video caption: \"received 'endless threats'\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"After the false posts, Hill received 'endless threats' and 'threats of violence' and is hiding in a safe house; Hampshire confirmed an unrelated officer was misidentified online and subjected to death threats.","causal_attribution":"Her account to two independent outlets plus the constabulary's own confirmation."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'The home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, said on Tuesday that a male officer had been misidentified and that he had had to move out of his home.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'BBC Verify has also obtained evidence that current police officer Tristan Parsons, who was also wrongly accused online of being involved, was not in the country at the time of Nowak's murder.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A second officer was wrongly accused in the same wave: the Home Secretary said a male officer had been misidentified and had to move out of his home; BBC Verify obtained evidence that serving officer Tristan Parsons was not in the country at the time of the murder.","causal_attribution":"The Home Secretary's account covers the displacement; BBC Verify's evidence covers Parsons's non-involvement. Whether Mahmood meant Parsons specifically is not stated; the two accounts are recorded separately."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Musk... posting on his X platform during the trial that he would fund a private prosecution of the officers involved.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Starmer passage: 'Musk, again, has been interfering in our politics in the last few days, trying to whip up division'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Elon Musk posted during the trial that he would fund a private prosecution of the officers involved; Prime Minister Keir Starmer accused Musk of trying to 'whip up division' over the case.","causal_attribution":"Context for the amplification climate; not itself an AI claim."}],"effects":[{"label":"false AI identification of a former officer in a charged murder case; threats drove her into hiding","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/03/former-officer-hampshire-hiding-after-being-falsely-linked-henry-nowak-arrest","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2026-06-03T16:28Z). Includes Hill's statement, the Grok screengrab reference, the Hampshire statement and the Home Secretary's account.","independence_group":"guardian"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg7pl7zj024o","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2026-06-04T15:50Z; BBC Verify, Devlin & Nguyen, with André Rhoden-Paul).","independence_group":"bbc"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["justice","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["What Grok answered in sessions other than the screengrabbed post, and whether xAI corrected or constrained the false identification, is not reported.","The date the false posts began (during the trial) is not precisely stated; Hill first saw them around 03:00 BST on 2 June 2026.","Whether any platform removed the misidentifying content is not reported.","The jury inquest into Nowak's death is expected next year; its findings are pending and concern the police response, not the misidentification."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: the online spread about the Hampshire (Southampton) case and Hill's concealment in the UK. Affected persons: both officers are UK-based (Parsons was abroad at the time of the murder, not at the time of the misidentification). Court country: the Digwa murder trial and the expected inquest are in England; no proceeding by or against the misidentified officers is reported.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a consequential false claim about identified people (made_claim_about): two officers wrongly named by AI platforms in a charged case, documented by two independent chains including the outlet's screengrab evidence and the constabulary's confirmation. Hill spoke publicly; Parsons is named by BBC Verify in a vindicating context. The Nowak case background is limited to what the claims require.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Guardian carries a screengrab of a Grok post incorrectly naming Hill and reports in its own voice that Grok falsely named her and the other officer as the 'primary officers shown'; Hill's own statement names 'AI platforms such as Grok'; BBC Verify's interview confirms the Grok misidentification. xAI was approached for comment by both outlets.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Grok falsely named former officer Christi Hill as an arresting officer in the Henry Nowak case; she is in hiding after threats","summary":"In early June 2026, social media posts and the AI chatbot Grok falsely identified former Hampshire police constable Christi Hill as one of the 'primary officers shown' in bodycam footage of the December 2025 arrest of Henry Nowak, who died after being stabbed. Hill had left the force in April 2024 — more than a year before the murder — and says the misidentification stems from a national police bravery award photo being misattributed. After 'endless threats' and 'threats of violence' she is hiding in a safe house. BBC Verify separately obtained evidence that serving officer Tristan Parsons, also wrongly accused online, was not in the country at the time; the Home Secretary said a misidentified male officer had to move out of his home. Hampshire Constabulary confirmed an unrelated officer was misidentified and received death threats.","incidentDate":"2026-06-02","incidentEndDate":"2026-06-04","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-06-03","aiSystem":"Grok (and other AI platforms, unnamed)","aiProduct":"Grok","aiCompany":"xAI","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","reputational_harm","loss_of_autonomy"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A factually impossible identification by AI platforms including Grok put a former officer into hiding after death threats; a serving officer wrongly accused in the same wave had to move out of his home, per the Home Secretary.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two documented harmed people: Hill (Guardian interview and statement; BBC Verify interview) and the male officer identified by BBC Verify as Tristan Parsons (BBC's evidence he was abroad; the Home Secretary's account that a male officer had to move home). No further misidentified officers are reported in the inspected sources.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/03/former-officer-hampshire-hiding-after-being-falsely-linked-henry-nowak-arrest","primarySourceLabel":"The Guardian (3 Jun 2026) — Hill's statement, the Grok screengrab, Hampshire and Mahmood accounts","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T09:25:27.124866+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:32.056946+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["made-claim-about","false-identification","grok","police","threats","uk"]}]}