{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-27T06:50:24.930Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"pay","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":3,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":3,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":3,"mixedRelations":1,"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":"2024-brasilia-labour-court-orders-ifood-to-compensate-delivery-worker-banned-after-its-face-check-flagged-his-own-photos","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'O aplicativo do iFood exige que, todos os dias, os entregadores enviem uma foto como reconhecimento facial, antes das entregas ou durante o trabalho. O objetivo é evitar fraudes e invasão à conta.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The iFood courier app requires delivery workers to send a photo for facial recognition every day, before deliveries or during work, to prevent fraud and account takeover.","causal_attribution":"Description of the system; no causal claim."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'O caso ocorreu em 30 de abril de 2024' ... 'apareceu a mensagem dizendo que eu estava banido da plataforma por descumprir as normas' ... 'o motivo do banimento foi por conta de que outra pessoa tentou acessar inúmeras vezes o aplicativo e isso é proibido' ... 'era eu na foto'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Pedi que enviassem a foto de quem estava tentando acessar. E para minha surpresa, a pessoa na foto era eu.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The worker says that on 30 April 2024, after completing the facial check, he received a message that he was banned for breaking the rules; iFood later said another person had repeatedly tried to access the account, and the photo it showed was of him.","causal_attribution":"The worker's account (one witness, interviewed by two outlets); accepted as true by the court by default."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'me tiraram uma renda bem significativa, contava com esse dinheiro toda semana pra pagar minhas contas'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The worker says the ban took away a significant income he relied on every week to pay his bills.","causal_attribution":"The worker's account of the consequence."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'condenou o iFood a pagar R$ 60 mil como indenização por danos morais' ... 'reconheço como verdadeiros: a suspensão do contrato de trabalho por culpa exclusiva da Reclamada; os prejuízos financeiros e psicológicos sofridos pelo Reclamante em razão da impossibilidade de laborar em favor da Reclamada; e a falha racista na ferramenta utilizada para reconhecimento facial' ... 'o iFood não cumpriu o prazo para apresentar a defesa'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'O iFood não apresentou defesa, segundo o magistrado.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A Brasília labour judge ordered iFood to pay R$60,000 in moral damages, applying a default because iFood did not file a defence in time, and recognised as true the suspension of the contract through iFood's fault, the worker's financial and psychological losses and a racist failure in the facial recognition tool.","causal_attribution":"First-instance judgment as quoted by two outlets (one underlying document); findings rest on a procedural default and are under appeal."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'O iFood afirmou não existe análise de características raciais no procedimento de reconhecimento facial.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A empresa já apresentou recurso contra a sentença.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"iFood says there is no analysis of racial characteristics in its facial recognition procedure, and it has appealed the judgment.","causal_attribution":"iFood's statement and the appeal; contrary evidence on the racial-bias finding."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'voltou a trabalhar com entrega pelo app'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"iFood restored the account during the case, and the worker returned to delivering through the app.","causal_attribution":"Outcome for the worker before judgment."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Em ambas as fotos está a mesma pessoa: o reclamante (entregador)' ... 'o entregador trabalhava havia três anos para o iFood quando foi bloqueado na plataforma por suposto acesso de outra pessoa na conta'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The worker's lawyer argued that both photos iFood cited show the same person, the worker, and that he had worked for iFood for about three years when he was blocked over the supposed access by another person.","causal_attribution":"The worker's pleading as reported by Estadão."}],"effects":[{"label":"delivery worker banned from the app and lost income after its face check flagged his own photos (worker's account; court ruling by default)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://g1.globo.com/df/distrito-federal/noticia/2025/06/30/justica-condena-ifood-a-indenizar-entregador-do-df-por-danos-morais-apos-falha-racista-em-reconhecimento-facial-entenda.ghtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-27 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. G1 report by TV Globo Brasília, read in full.","independence_group":"g1-tvglobo-brasilia"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.estadao.com.br/politica/coluna-do-estadao/justica-condena-ifood-a-indenizar-entregador-por-falha-racista-em-reconhecimento-facial/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-27 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Estadão column report, read in full; it gives the court as the 8th Labour Court, where G1 gives the 22nd.","independence_group":"estadao-coluna"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.terra.com.br/nos/ifood-e-condenado-a-indenizar-entregador-por-falha-racista-em-reconhecimento-facial-no-app,8954fd59fdcfb407081f434e12593ba4gonqqml2.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-27 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Terra report based on its own interview with the worker, read in full.","independence_group":"terra-nos"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether any person reviewed the facial check result before the ban, or whether the ban was fully automated.","How long the account stayed blocked before iFood restored it.","Which company supplies the facial recognition technology.","Which Brasília labour court heard the case (G1 says the 22nd, Estadão the 8th).","How the appeal ends."],"geography":{"basis":"G1 describes the worker as a delivery worker of the Federal District (DF) and the ban happened while he was making deliveries there, so the event and the affected person are in Brazil; the case was heard by a labour court in Brasília.","court_countries":["BR"],"event_countries":["BR"],"affected_person_countries":["BR"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a contextual case (made_decision_about): a delivery worker says the iFood app's facial recognition check flagged his own photos as another person and the platform banned him, costing income; a Brasília labour court, ruling by default, recognised a racist failure in the facial recognition tool and awarded R$60,000. iFood denies racial analysis and has appealed. No private name appears in the public record.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-27"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The iFood app runs a daily facial recognition check on delivery workers' photos (G1). The worker says that after he completed it the platform banned him, iFood support said another person had tried to access his account, and the photos it showed as that person were his own (Terra, G1); his lawyer's case was that both photos show the same person (Estadão). The labour judge, applying a default because iFood filed no defence, recognised as true a racist failure in the tool used for facial recognition (G1, Estadão). The connection between the system's output and the ban is the worker's account, accepted by default; iFood denies racial analysis but no source reports it disputing the ban sequence. Whether a person reviewed the result before the ban is not stated.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Brasília labour court orders iFood to pay delivery worker who says its face check flagged his own photos as another person and got him banned; iFood appeals","summary":"A delivery worker in Brazil's Federal District who had worked for the iFood app for about three years says he was banned from the platform in April 2024 shortly after completing the app's daily facial recognition check. iFood support told him another person had tried to access his account; when he asked to see that person's photos, they were his own. G1 reports that the only difference from his registration photo was his hair, which he was growing out. In a judgment reported in June 2025, a Brasília labour judge, applying a default because iFood had not filed a defence in time, accepted as true that the contract was suspended through iFood's fault, that he suffered financial and psychological losses, and that the facial recognition tool had a racist failure, and ordered iFood to pay R$60,000 in moral damages. iFood denies that its facial recognition procedure analyses racial characteristics and has appealed. The account was restored during the case. No appeal ruling has been reported.","incidentDate":"2024-04-30","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-06-11","aiSystem":"The facial recognition check in the iFood courier app, which requires delivery workers to submit a photo every day before or during deliveries to prevent fraud and account takeover; the provider of the underlying technology is not named","aiProduct":"iFood facial recognition check","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","professional_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A delivery worker says he was banned from the iFood app after its facial recognition check flagged his own photos as another person and lost income he relied on; a labour court, ruling by default, recognised his financial and psychological losses and awarded R$60,000. iFood denies racial analysis and has appealed.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One delivery worker, the plaintiff. No other affected person is described.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"BR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://g1.globo.com/df/distrito-federal/noticia/2025/06/30/justica-condena-ifood-a-indenizar-entregador-do-df-por-danos-morais-apos-falha-racista-em-reconhecimento-facial-entenda.ghtml","primarySourceLabel":"G1 / TV Globo Brasília, 30 Jun 2025: court orders iFood to compensate delivery worker over facial recognition failure (Portuguese)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-27T03:08:51.893173+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-27T03:08:51.893173+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","identity-verification","gig-work","delivery-workers","account-ban","labour-court","brazil","made-decision-about"]},{"id":"2024-gelderland-sub-district-judge-used-chatgpt-to-estimate-solar-panel-damages-in-neighbour-dispute-and-rejected-claim","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Volgens hem is de verminderde opbrengst van de panelen van 77%'; 'Dat leidt volgens hem tot een totale schade van € 21.385,90'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The claimant sued his neighbour for about 21,000 euros, saying the neighbour's roof extension cut the yield of his solar panels by 77%.","causal_attribution":"The claimant's case as recorded in the judgment; documented as the content of his claim, not as a fact about the yield."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'De kantonrechter schat, mede met behulp van ChatGPT, de gemiddelde levensduur van zonnepanelen uit 2009 op 25 à 30 jaar'; 'Uitgaande, wederom mede aan de hand van ChatGPT, van een huidige gemiddelde kWh-prijs van € 0,30'; 'bedraagt het rendementsverlies, met een min of meer gelijkblijvende kWh-prijs, daarmee ongeveer € 2.250,--'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Bij de schadeberekening maakt de rechtbank ook gebruik van ChatGPT'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judge estimated the panels' remaining lifespan and the average electricity price partly with the help of ChatGPT and put the yield loss at about 2,250 euros.","causal_attribution":"Stated by the court in its own judgment; the summary relays it. One origin (the judgment)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'het maximaal te begroten bedrag aan schade zou hiermee (€ 2.250,-- + € 1.073,40 =) € 3.323,40 bedragen'; 'uiteindelijk aangeboden bedrag van'; 'Er is dus in deze procedure geen grond om'; 'heeft ook geen recht op € 3.300,-, nu hij het aanbod tot het betalen van dit bedrag heeft verworpen'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Rechtbank Gelderland oordeelt dat X geen recht heeft op een schadevergoeding in verband met de door Y geplaatste dakopbouw'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Because half of the maximum damage of 3,323.40 euros was below the neighbour's 3,300-euro offer, which the claimant had refused, the claim was rejected and he received nothing.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning linking the ChatGPT-assisted estimate to the rejection; documented by the judgment."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Redelijkerwijs – en ook weer mede aan de hand van ChatGPT – valt aan te nemen dat dit materiaal daardoor niet meer bruikbaar was'; 'wegens schadevergoeding te betalen'; '€ 2.619,02, vermeerderd met de wettelijke rente'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The judge also assumed, partly with ChatGPT, that insulation the claimant threw into water was unusable, and on the counterclaim ordered him to pay damages of 2,619.02 euros in total and the costs of the main claim.","causal_attribution":"Stated in the judgment; the ChatGPT-assisted assumption supports only the 204.66-euro insulation item within the total."}],"effects":[{"label":"damages claim rejected after a ChatGPT-assisted damage estimate","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-24 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Full text of the judgment of 7 June 2024 from the Rechtspraak open-data service (published 26 July 2024); HTTP 200, read in full.","independence_group":"rechtbank-gelderland-judgment-2024-3636"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.taxlive.nl/nl/documenten/vn-vandaag/rechter-gebruikt-chatgpt-bij-schadeberekening/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-24 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Taxlive V-N Vandaag summary of the same judgment, edition 12 August 2024; HTTP 200, read in full.","independence_group":"rechtbank-gelderland-judgment-2024-3636"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["What the judge asked ChatGPT and what it answered.","Whether the claimant appealed and with what result.","How the outcome would have differed without the ChatGPT-assisted estimates; the judgment also rejected the investment claim on other grounds."],"geography":{"basis":"The dispute concerns two attached houses whose owners also live in them, decided by the Rechtbank Gelderland sitting in Nijmegen; the street and town are anonymised in the published judgment, which applies Dutch law and Dutch subsidies.","court_countries":["NL"],"event_countries":["NL"],"affected_person_countries":["NL"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as an AI-informed decision: in a judgment of 7 June 2024 a Dutch sub-district judge stated that the estimates of a homeowner's solar-panel lifespan and electricity prices were made partly with ChatGPT, and the resulting damage figure led to the rejection of the homeowner's claim against his neighbour. The facts come from the judgment itself.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-24"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The judgment states that the judge estimated the lifespan of the claimant's solar panels and the current electricity price partly with the help of ChatGPT, and those figures set the yield loss at about 2,250 euros and the maximum damage below the level at which the neighbour's offer would have been insufficient, leading to the rejection of the claim; the judge also relied partly on ChatGPT to treat insulation material as unusable in the counterclaim. The judgment does not reproduce the questions or answers.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Dutch sub-district judge used ChatGPT to estimate solar-panel lifespan and power prices in a neighbour dispute, then rejected the homeowner's damages claim","summary":"A homeowner in the Netherlands sued his neighbour, whose permitted roof extension shaded his solar panels, claiming more than 21,000 euros for lost yield and investment. In a judgment of 7 June 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636), the sub-district judge of the Rechtbank Gelderland, sitting in Nijmegen, held that the neighbour had to bear half of the damage and then calculated the damage, estimating the average lifespan of solar panels from 2009 and the current average electricity price partly with the help of ChatGPT, as the judgment states. Using a lifespan of 27.5 years, about 15 remaining years and a price of 0.30 euros per kWh, the judge put the yield loss at about 2,250 euros and the maximum damage at 3,323.40 euros; half of that was less than the 3,300 euros the neighbour had offered, so the claim was rejected and the homeowner, who had refused the offer, received nothing and was ordered to pay costs. On the neighbour's counterclaim, the judge assumed, again partly with ChatGPT, that insulation material the homeowner had thrown into water was no longer usable, and ordered him to pay damages of 2,619.02 euros in total. The judgment does not say what was asked or answered, and whether it was appealed is not reported.","incidentDate":"2024-06-07","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-07-26","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which the judgment says was used, together with other reasoning, to estimate the lifespan of solar panels, the average electricity price and whether water-damaged insulation was still usable","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A homeowner's damages claim was rejected after the judge calculated the damage partly with ChatGPT's estimates, and the homeowner was ordered to pay costs and counterclaim damages, according to the judgment.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The claimant homeowner, whose claim was rejected in the judgment. The neighbour won the counterclaim and is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"NL","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636","primarySourceLabel":"Rechtbank Gelderland, judgment of 7 June 2024, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636 (Rechtspraak open data)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-24T03:15:10.77655+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-24T03:15:10.77655+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["court","judge-ai-use","chatgpt","damages","netherlands"]},{"id":"2025-oregon-federal-court-dismisses-family-plaintiffs-claims-after-briefs-with-ai-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The issue before the Court is the appropriate sanctions for Plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence'; 'Plaintiffs filed three briefs containing citations to fifteen non-existent cases and fabricated quotations falsely attributed to eight legitimate authorities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs filed three summary-judgment briefs citing fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations attributed to eight real authorities, and the court framed its sanctions as being for the plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'[t]he inclusion of inaccurate citations was inadvertent and the result of reliance on an automated legal citation tool'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs told the court the inaccurate citations were inadvertent and resulted from reliance on an automated legal citation tool.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs' filing as quoted by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Court finds that Plaintiffs share responsibility with'; 'for the submission of fifteen non-existent cases and eight fabricated quotations'; 'is a serial self-represented litigator who was likely the person responsible for using artificial intelligence to draft the summary judgment briefs in this case'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court found that the plaintiffs shared responsibility with their lead lawyer and that one plaintiff, a serial self-represented litigator, was likely the person responsible for using AI to draft the briefs.","causal_attribution":"A court finding of likelihood on unrebutted circumstantial evidence; the drafter's AI use is not otherwise established."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'STRICKEN without leave to refile'; 'to pay the Clerk of the Court $15,500 within 30'; 'Defendants are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney' ; 'Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED with'; 'Local Rules provides an additional basis for terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs' claims.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court struck the briefs without leave to refile, ordered the lead lawyer to pay $15,500 to the Clerk, awarded the defendants reasonable fees and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice; it found the plaintiffs' continual violations of the Local Rules an additional basis for that dismissal.","causal_attribution":"Established by the order."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'finds the requested amount of $94,704.38 reasonable'; 'is ORDERED to pay Defendants 15% of that award, $14,205.66'; 'pay Defendants the remaining 85%'; '$80,498.72 within thirty (30) days'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In March 2026 the court found fees of $94,704.38 reasonable and ordered local counsel to pay 15% ($14,205.66) and the lead lawyer 85% ($80,498.72).","causal_attribution":"Established by the fees order."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Defendants' unopposed Motion for Partial Summary'; 'summary judgment on their eighth counterclaim for breach of contract and ordered specific performance of the inheritance contract'; 'Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 228) is DENIED.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In June 2026 the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its grant of the defendants' unopposed motion for partial summary judgment, which had awarded specific performance of an inheritance contract on a breach-of-contract counterclaim.","causal_attribution":"Established by the reconsideration order; the orders do not say the counterclaim outcome resulted from the AI sanction."}],"effects":[{"label":"family plaintiffs' claims dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for briefs with AI-fabricated citations","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"lead lawyer fined $15,500 and two lawyers ordered to pay $94,704.38 in fees","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.215.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.225.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, pdftotext); the background and fee-allocation sections were inspected.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.233.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-15 from CourtListener RECAP storage (HTTP 200, pdftotext); five-page order read in full.","independence_group":"d-oregon-case-1-21-cv-00157-orders"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used; the orders name none.","Who drafted the briefs: the court's finding is one of likelihood, and the plaintiffs gave no explanation.","Whether the fine and fees were paid, and the outcome of the order sent to the Oregon State Bar and of a later show-cause order to the lead lawyer.","Whether the counterclaim ruling was affected by the striking of the plaintiffs' briefs."],"geography":{"basis":"The briefs were filed in and the sanctions imposed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Where the briefs were drafted and where the parties live are not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's own orders establish that it dismissed the family plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and sanctioned their lawyers for briefs citing nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations, which the court attributes to the plaintiffs' misuse of generative AI and finds one plaintiff likely drafted with AI. The three orders were read.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's 12 December 2025 order describes the sanctions as being for the plaintiffs' misuse of generative artificial intelligence, finds that three briefs cited fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations, records the plaintiffs' statement that the citations resulted from reliance on an automated legal citation tool, and finds that one plaintiff was likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs (communicated_with). The AI output reached the court in those briefs, and the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and sanctioned their lawyers because of it (informed_decision_about). No product is named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Oregon federal court dismisses family plaintiffs' claims and fines their lawyer after briefs cited 15 nonexistent cases it attributes to generative AI misuse","summary":"On 12 December 2025 the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed with prejudice the claims of plaintiffs in a family dispute over their late mother's estate and family property, as a sanction for what the court called their misuse of generative artificial intelligence, and found their continual violations of the court's Local Rules an additional basis for the dismissal. Three of the plaintiffs' summary-judgment briefs cited fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations attributed to eight real authorities. The plaintiffs had said the inaccurate citations came from reliance on an automated legal citation tool. The court found that the plaintiffs shared responsibility with their lead lawyer and that one plaintiff, a frequent self-represented litigant, was likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs. It struck the briefs, ordered the lead lawyer to pay $15,500 to the court and awarded the defendants their fees. In March 2026 it set those fees at $94,704.38, ordering the lead lawyer to pay 85% and local counsel 15%. In June 2026 it denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider a later ruling for the defendants on a counterclaim.","incidentDate":"2025-01-31","incidentEndDate":"2025-12-12","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-12-12","aiSystem":"Generative AI used to draft summary-judgment briefs, according to the court; the plaintiffs described it as an automated legal citation tool. No product is named in the orders","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's orders, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice because their briefs cited nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations that the court attributes to misuse of generative AI, which it found one plaintiff likely used to draft them; the lead lawyer was fined $15,500 and the two lawyers were ordered to pay $94,704.38 in fees.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Three people counted from the orders: the individual plaintiff whose claims were dismissed (found likely to have drafted the briefs with AI, so that AI use is a finding of likelihood and she is not counted as an established user), the lead lawyer (fined and ordered to pay 85% of fees) and local counsel (ordered to pay 15% of fees). The estate whose claim was also dismissed has beneficiaries the orders do not count; the LLC plaintiff is not a person.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-OR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.158388/gov.uscourts.ord.158388.215.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Opinion and Order, ECF 215, case 1:21-cv-00157 (12 December 2025)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:05:45.14301+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:05:45.14301+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","oregon","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","claims-dismissed","client-responsibility"]}]}