{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-27T06:49:37.752Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"pay","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2024","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":2,"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":"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"]}]}