{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-12T08:44:05.994Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"para","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2026","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":5,"coverage":{"cases":5,"countries":3,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":5,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"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":"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":"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-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"]}]}