{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-12T08:44:24.704Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"para","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":3,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":4,"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":"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":"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"]}]}