{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-27T06:49:37.843Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"pay","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":8,"coverage":{"cases":8,"countries":5,"languages":5,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":1,"minors":1,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":8,"mixedRelations":2,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-ramat-gan-supreme-court-finds-city-denied-special-education-pupils-school-transport-with-ai-invented-circular-and-rulings","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'נדחתה בקשתו של האב .במענה מיום  25.5.2025נכתב ,כי בהתאם להוראות \"חוזר מנכ\"ל'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'בתגובה, במאי 2025 עובדי העירייה שלחו מכתב רשמי ומפורט שבו דחו את בקשתו.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 25 May 2025 the municipality refused transport for the pupil from his father's home, citing an Education Ministry director-general circular and quotations from recent rulings.","causal_attribution":"Facts recited by the Supreme Court from the documents before it."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'המנכ\"ל אליו מפנה עיריית רמת גן אינו מוכר לנו'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'גם במשרד החינוך אמרו כי החוזר שהעירייה הפנתה אליו לא מוכר להם'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Education Ministry told the father's lawyer that it did not know the circular the municipality cited.","causal_attribution":"The ministry's reply as quoted in the judgment."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'עיון במסמכים שצורפו לערעור ,לא מותיר מקום לספק באשר לשימוש שעשתה'; 'כפי שהוצגה למערער – התבססה בבירור על שימוש לא מבוקר בבינה מלאכותית'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'עיריית רמת גן תשלם הוצאות בסך 30,000 שקל בשל \"שימוש מופקר\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Supreme Court found that the documents left no doubt that the municipality had used AI, and that its decision, at least as presented to the pupil, clearly rested on uncontrolled use of artificial intelligence.","causal_attribution":"The court's own finding on the AI use; the municipality did not deny it but argued the errors were technical."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'בתשלום הוצאות על סך של  – ₪ 30,000'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'ביולי העירייה הסכימה לפנים משורת הדין להחזיר לילד את הזכאות להסעות'; 'בית המשפט העליון חייב את עיריית רמת גן לשלם לאב 30,000 ש\"ח הוצאות משפט'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The municipality agreed in July 2025 to restore the transport, and the Supreme Court ordered it to pay 30,000 shekels in costs.","causal_attribution":"Outcome as recorded in the judgment and reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"special-education pupil refused school transport on the basis of AI-invented authorities; family forced to litigate","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://z.calcalist.co.il/assets/pickerul/f8edf1ed-a81f-40ca-9d68-80fe1e65d86e.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"he","translation_note":"Read in Hebrew 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. Supreme Court judgment PDF hosted by Calcalist; the live file returned HTTP 403, so a Web Archive capture of the same URL was read in full (text extracted from the PDF).","independence_group":"israel-supreme-court-judgment"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.davar1.co.il/665441/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"he","translation_note":"Read in Hebrew 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. Davar report of 24 March 2026 with comment from the father's lawyer; the live page returned HTTP 403, so a Web Archive capture of the same URL was read in full.","independence_group":"davar-report"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.bizportal.co.il/takdin/news/article/20029328","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"he","translation_note":"Read in Hebrew 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. Bizportal (Takdin) report of 22 March 2026 quoting the judgment; HTML read, HTTP 200.","independence_group":"bizportal-takdin-report"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education","public_services","justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI system the municipality used and who in the municipality used it.","How long the pupil was without transport from his father's home between the refusal and July 2025.","Any disciplinary outcome inside the municipality."],"geography":{"basis":"The decision was taken by the Ramat Gan municipality and litigated in the Tel Aviv District Court and the Israeli Supreme Court (judgment and Davar). The family's residence is not used as the event location.","court_countries":["IL"],"event_countries":["IL"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as an AI-informed administrative decision about a person: the Israeli Supreme Court found that Ramat Gan municipality's refusal of a special-education pupil's school transport rested on uncontrolled AI use with an invented circular and rulings, and ordered costs against the municipality.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-27"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Supreme Court found that the documents left no doubt that the municipality had used AI in its initial decision and in the proceedings, and that the refusal, at least as presented to the pupil, clearly rested on uncontrolled AI use: the circular it cited was unknown to the Education Ministry and the quoted rulings did not contain the passages. The AI output thus supplied the reasons for the municipality's decision about the pupil. The specific AI system is not named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Israel: Supreme Court finds Ramat Gan refused a special-education pupil school transport in a letter resting on uncontrolled AI use and invented rulings","summary":"In May 2025 the Ramat Gan municipality in Israel refused a request that a special-education pupil be given school transport from his father's home, citing an Education Ministry director-general circular and quotations from recent rulings. The father's lawyer could not find the circular, and the Education Ministry said it did not know it. After the father petitioned the Tel Aviv District Court, the municipality agreed in July 2025 to restore the transport but again filed invented quotations, and the district court refused costs. On appeal, the Supreme Court (Deputy President Noam Sohlberg, ruling published 22 March 2026) held that the documents left no doubt that the municipality had used artificial intelligence and that its decision, at least as presented to the pupil, clearly rested on uncontrolled AI use. It ordered the municipality to pay 30,000 shekels in costs.","incidentDate":"2025-05-25","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-22","aiSystem":"Unidentified generative AI system whose uncontrolled use, according to the Israeli Supreme Court, produced the non-existent circular and invented case-law quotations in the Ramat Gan municipality's refusal letter and court filings","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm","legal_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The pupil was refused school transport from his father's home on the basis of invented authorities, and the family had to petition the courts; the father's lawyer told Davar the father felt anger and frustration. Transport was restored in July 2025.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The pupil (the appellant) and his father, who brought the request and the litigation; the ruling and Davar describe both. The municipality's staff used the AI system, so neither is counted as a user.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"IL","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://z.calcalist.co.il/assets/pickerul/f8edf1ed-a81f-40ca-9d68-80fe1e65d86e.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Israel Supreme Court, appeal judgment of Deputy President N. Sohlberg (Ramat Gan school transport), March 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-27T03:19:07.496358+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-27T03:19:07.496358+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["public-services","education","special-education","hallucinated-authorities","supreme-court","israel"]},{"id":"2025-shanghai-yangpu-man-used-ai-faked-food-poisoning-medical-records-to-extort-restaurants-convicted","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'要求商家赔偿2000元医疗费，否则将投诉和曝光'; '最终转账赔付'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'店家赔了钱'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A customer told a Yangpu barbecue restaurant he had fallen ill after eating there, produced a hospital visit record and invoice, demanded 2,000 yuan in medical costs under threat of complaints and publicity, and the restaurant paid.","causal_attribution":"Police account relayed by Shangguan; the Procuratorate Daily feature gives the same episode briefly. Different reporting chains on the same police case; marked reported because the details (amount, threat) come from the police account."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'材料均系伪造'; '利用AI软件对图片进行篡改，替换姓名、调整日期、伪造金额'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'从未有过相关就医记录'; '于是用手机AI工具生成了虚假材料'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Police found the man had no hospital record and the materials were forged; police say he confessed to altering images of other people's medical records with AI software, replacing the name, date and amount.","causal_attribution":"The AI use rests on the man's admission as reported by police (Shangguan) and in China Voice's report of the investigation (Xinhua). The tool is not named, and the accounts differ on whether existing record images were altered or materials generated."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'成功敲诈勒索两起，未遂两起，非法获利2500元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'去年11月第一次索赔成功后，一个月内他又以同样方式对四家餐厅提出索'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Police say he succeeded twice and failed twice, obtaining 2,500 yuan; Xinhua reports that after a first successful claim in November of the previous year he made similar claims against four more restaurants within a month.","causal_attribution":"Counts come from the police account (Shangguan) and the China Voice report; they are not reconciled (two plus two versus one plus four), so the record keeps both."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'上海市杨浦区人民法院审理认定'; '判处拘役四个月、缓刑四个月，并处罚金2000元'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'利用AI技术伪造就医材料、恶意投诉、敲诈勒索商家的案件依法提起公诉'; '法院审理后以敲诈勒索罪判处'; '利用AI软件生成急性肠胃炎诊断证明和逼真的呕吐物照片'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Yangpu District People's Procuratorate prosecuted him in June 2026, and the Yangpu District People's Court convicted him of extortion and sentenced him to four months' criminal detention, suspended for four months, and a 2,000 yuan fine; the Procuratorate Daily says he used AI software to generate gastroenteritis diagnosis certificates and vomit photos.","causal_attribution":"Two reporting chains give the same sentence; both relay the court outcome and the judgment itself was not read, so the claim is reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"restaurants paid compensation demanded with AI-forged medical records (police: 2,500 yuan from two successful claims)","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.shobserver.cn/sgh/detail?id=1713109","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese and translated by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-17; no human reviewer inspected the text. Shangguan News report of the Yangpu public security sub-bureau's account, 26 February 2026.","independence_group":"yangpu-police-account-2026-02"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://app.xinhuanet.com/news/article.html?articleId=20260616b5cfed558eda4c739780064335734766","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese and translated by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-17; no human reviewer inspected the text. Xinhua client carry of a China Media Group China Voice report (reporters named in the text), 16 June 2026, drawing on the police investigation and the court judgment.","independence_group":"cmg-china-voice-2026-06"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.chinanews.com.cn/fz/2026/10-14/10714250.shtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese and translated by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-17; no human reviewer inspected the text. China News Service carry of a Procuratorate Daily feature ('来源：检察日报'), 14 October 2026.","independence_group":"procuratorate-daily-2026-10"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The AI tool used, and whether it altered existing record images or generated documents and photos from text.","How many restaurants were targeted and paid: the police account gives two successful and two failed claims, Xinhua a first claim plus four more within a month.","The date of the judgment; the text of the judgment was not read."],"geography":{"basis":"The restaurants are in Yangpu district, Shanghai, and the Yangpu police, procuratorate and court handled the case (Shangguan, Xinhua, Procuratorate Daily).","court_countries":["CN"],"event_countries":["CN"],"affected_person_countries":["CN"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a contextual case (made_claim_about): Yangpu police say a man used AI software to forge medical records claiming food poisoning and obtained 2,500 yuan from restaurants, which he admitted; the Yangpu court convicted him of extortion. Three reporting chains (police account, China Voice, Procuratorate Daily).","reviewed_on":"2026-10-17"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Yangpu police say the man confessed to altering images of other people's medical records with AI software, changing the name, date and amount and adding a beef food-poisoning note, after the hospital confirmed he had no record (Shangguan). China Voice (Xinhua) says he used an AI tool on his phone to generate the false materials, and the Procuratorate Daily says he used AI software to generate diagnosis certificates and vomit photos and was prosecuted for using AI to forge medical materials. The AI output is the forged documents and photos asserting that the restaurants' food had made him ill (made_claim_about), which the restaurants relied on when they paid. The tool is not named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Shanghai court convicts a man who, police say, used AI software to fake food-poisoning medical records and extort restaurants into paying compensation","summary":"Police in Yangpu district, Shanghai, say a customer extorted restaurants with medical records he had forged using AI software; Xinhua dates his first successful claim to November 2025. In the police account (Shangguan News, 26 February 2026) he claimed to have fallen ill after eating at a barbecue restaurant, showed a hospital visit record and medical invoice, and demanded 2,000 yuan in medical costs, threatening complaints and publicity; the restaurant paid. Police checked with other diners and the hospital, found he had no hospital record and the materials were forged, and say he confessed to using AI software to alter images of other people's medical records, replacing the name, date and amount. Police say he succeeded twice and failed twice, obtaining 2,500 yuan, and that he also filed complaints to market regulators with the forged material to pressure the restaurants. According to Xinhua's June report and the Procuratorate Daily, the Yangpu District People's Court convicted him of extortion and sentenced him to four months' criminal detention, suspended for four months, and a 2,000 yuan fine.","incidentDate":"2025-11-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-02-26","aiSystem":"AI software on the man's phone that, according to Yangpu police, he used to alter images of other people's medical records (name, date, amount) and, according to later reports, to generate gastroenteritis diagnosis certificates, receipts and vomit photos; the tool is not named","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to Yangpu police, restaurants paid compensation demanded with AI-forged medical records: a barbecue restaurant paid 2,000 yuan, and the man obtained 2,500 yuan in total from two successful claims, with two more attempts failing.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Police say two extortions succeeded and two failed. One payer is described: the barbecue restaurant's person in charge, who paid 2,000 yuan (Shangguan). The second paying restaurant's people are not described, so the count is 1 plus an unquantified remainder.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.shobserver.cn/sgh/detail?id=1713109","primarySourceLabel":"Shangguan News, 26 February 2026: Yangpu police on a barbecue restaurant that paid 2,000 yuan over forged medical records","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-17T03:18:51.274802+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-17T03:18:51.274802+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["fake-medical-records","food-poisoning-claim","extortion","restaurants","criminal-conviction","shanghai","china","made-claim-about"]},{"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"]},{"id":"2025-quebec-appeal-court-costs-self-represented-appellant-ai-drafted-filings-nonexistent-judgments","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Elle réclame aussi 10 000 $ en dommages-intérêts'; 'références juridiques inexistantes générées par l’intelligence artificielle dans ses actes de procédure'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The respondent asked the Court of Appeal for $10,000 in damages, alleging that the appellant had included non-existent legal references generated by artificial intelligence in his filings.","causal_attribution":"The decision documents that the respondent made this request; the allegation is hers."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'parce qu’il a utilisé l’intelligence artificielle pour la rédaction'; 'déclaration d’appel et de son exposé, qui comportent deux références à des arrêts inexistants et une référence inexacte quant à un paragraphe cité'; 'L’appelant a contrevenu à cet Avis de la Juge en chef'; 'une forme de négligence plutôt que de la mauvaise foi'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Ruling on the respondent's request, the court described the appellant's notice of appeal and brief as written with artificial intelligence and as containing two references to non-existent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph, and found that he had breached the Chief Justice's notice on AI use through negligence rather than bad faith.","causal_attribution":"Finding stated in the Court of Appeal decision of 1 October 2026; the decision does not name the tool."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'une telle connaissance de la part de l’appelant n’a pas été démontrée'; 'il y a lieu de le condamner aux frais de justice en vertu de l’article 340 C.p.c.'; 'en matière familiale, de chacune'; 'REJETTE la demande visant à sanctionner un manquement au déroulement'; 'LE TOUT, avec les frais de justice en faveur de l’intimée.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Because knowledge of the invented references was not shown, the court rejected the separate monetary sanction but ordered court costs against the appellant under article 340 C.p.c. to sanction the conduct.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the decision; the costs are the court's response to the AI-drafted filings."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'ACCUEILLE en partie l’appel'; 'peine de 100 heures de travail d’utilité sociale'; 'une mesure coercitive d’emprisonnement de 30 jours'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On the merits the court partly allowed the appeal for reasons unrelated to AI and reduced the contempt penalty to 100 hours of community work and 30 days of coercive imprisonment.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the decision; the contempt arose from non-compliance with family-court orders, not from AI use."}],"effects":[{"label":"a self-represented appellant was ordered to pay court costs because his AI-drafted appeal filings cited non-existent judgments","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3266/Droit-de-la-famille-261553-2026-QCCA-1300.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read in full in French by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 from the copy of the decision hosted by the AI Hallucination Cases database (PDF, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator or reviewer was involved. The locators quote the French original.","independence_group":"qcca-2026-qcca-1300-decision"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the appellant used and what it produced beyond the two non-existent judgments and the inaccurate paragraph reference.","The amount of the court costs ordered against the appellant.","Whether the appellant has complied with the underlying orders or served the coercive imprisonment."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal was heard and decided by the Quebec Court of Appeal from a Quebec Superior Court judgment (decision caption and paragraph 1), and the filings were made in that court. The decision states no residence for the appellant, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["CA"],"event_countries":["CA"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the court's own decision: the Quebec Court of Appeal described a self-represented appellant's appeal filings as written with AI and as citing non-existent judgments, held that he had breached its AI notice and ordered costs against him. The facts are documented by the decision; the appellant is a private party in a family matter and is not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Ruling on the respondent's request (paragraph 28), the Quebec Court of Appeal decision describes the appellant's notice of appeal and brief as written with artificial intelligence and as containing two references to non-existent judgments and an inaccurate paragraph reference. The court treated that AI drafting and those references as established: it held that he had breached its AI notice (paragraph 30), contrasted his lack of shown knowledge of the hallucinations with an earlier case (paragraphs 31-32) and ordered costs against him for that reason. The AI output reached him as drafted text he filed (communicated_with) and informed the court's costs decision about him (informed_decision_about). The decision does not identify the tool or quote its output.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Quebec Court of Appeal orders costs against a self-represented appellant whose AI-drafted filings cited two non-existent judgments (1 Oct 2026)","summary":"On 1 October 2026 the Quebec Court of Appeal ordered court costs against a self-represented appellant in a family-law contempt appeal as a sanction for appeal filings that, in the court's description, he had written with artificial intelligence and that contained two references to non-existent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph. The court held that AI may be used to draft appeal filings only if the litigant verifies the authorities, found that he had breached the Chief Justice's notice on AI use, and described his conduct as negligence rather than bad faith. It rejected the respondent's request for a separate $10,000 sanction and, for reasons unrelated to AI, reduced the contempt penalty imposed at first instance. The decision does not name the AI tool.","incidentDate":"2025-12-15","incidentEndDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-01","aiSystem":"Artificial intelligence, not identified in the decision, which the self-represented appellant used to draft his notice of appeal and brief","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Quebec Court of Appeal ordered court costs against the self-represented appellant as a sanction for filings he drafted with AI that cited non-existent judgments, holding that he breached the court's AI notice through negligence (2026 QCCA 1300, 1 October 2026). The amount of the costs is not stated.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used AI to draft the filings and against whom costs were ordered. The respondent and other family members are not counted as harmed by the AI-related sanction.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3266/Droit-de-la-famille-261553-2026-QCCA-1300.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Quebec Court of Appeal, Droit de la famille — 261553, 2026 QCCA 1300, 1 October 2026 (copy hosted by the AI Hallucination Cases database)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:20.356128+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:20.356128+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated_citations","courts","self_represented_litigant","costs_order","family_law","canada","quebec"]},{"id":"2025-us-manhattan-airbnb-damage-claim-photos-disputed-as-manipulated-guest-refunded","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"the host told Airbnb that she had caused more than £12,000 worth of damage, and submitted pictures of an apparently cracked coffee table as part of his case.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Airbnb initially told her “after careful review of the photos”, she would have to reimburse the host a total of £5,314. She appealed against the decision.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The host told Airbnb the guest had caused more than 12,000 pounds of damage, submitted pictures including an apparently cracked coffee table, and Airbnb initially told the guest after reviewing the photos that she must reimburse 5,314 pounds.","causal_attribution":"The Guardian relays the guest's account of the host's claim and Airbnb's first decision. Airbnb's ruling and the photos were not inspected. New York Post and Fox Business rewrite this account."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"A close examination of two pictures of the coffee table appears to show differences in the damage, leading the woman to believe they were digitally manipulated or generated by AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"He did not respond to a request for comment.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Guardian reports that a close examination of two pictures of the coffee table appears to show differences in the damage, leading the guest to believe they were digitally manipulated or generated by AI. The host did not respond to the Guardian.","causal_attribution":"Guest's belief and the Guardian's description of her comparison. The photos were not inspected and no forensic finding was reported. Whether an AI tool was used is not established."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Airbnb said he had been warned for violating its terms and told he would be removed if there was another similar report. The company told him that it could not verify the images he submitted as part of his complaint.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We have taken action with the host, and we are reviewing the original handling of this case.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Airbnb told the host it could not verify the images he submitted, warned him for violating its terms and said he would be removed if there was another similar report.","causal_attribution":"Airbnb statements to the Guardian and to Fox Business. Airbnb did not state a finding that the images were AI-generated. The company's review of the photos is described only as 'careful review' with no mention of AI tools."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Five days after Guardian Money raised questions about the case with Airbnb, the woman was told it had accepted her appeal and credited her account with £500.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the company offered an £854 refund – a fifth of the cost of her booking. She refused to accept this","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"was refunded the full cost (£4,269) of her booking, and a negative review that the host had placed on her profile was taken down.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Airbnb apologised and said there would be a review into how her case was handled.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"After Guardian Money asked Airbnb about the case, Airbnb accepted the appeal, credited 500 pounds, then refunded the full booking cost of 4,269 pounds after the guest refused a partial offer, the host's negative review on her profile was taken down (the Guardian does not say by whom), and Airbnb apologised.","causal_attribution":"The Guardian relays the guest's account and Airbnb's statements. The refund and review removal were not documented by Airbnb records seen here."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"experience fell below our usual high standards.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"assure them that they will not be charged for the reported damage","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Airbnb said the guest's experience fell below its usual standards and that she would not be charged for the reported damage.","causal_attribution":"Airbnb's own statement to Fox Business."}],"effects":[{"label":"Guest told to reimburse the host on the strength of photos she says were manipulated; reversed on appeal","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/aug/02/airbnb-guest-damage-claim-refund-photos","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"guardian-report"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://nypost.com/2025/08/06/lifestyle/airbnb-guest-accused-of-causing-16k-in-property-damage-claims-host-used-ai-to-create-fake-photos/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"guardian-report"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/airbnb-apologizes-superhost-allegedly-ai-doctored-photos-claim-16k-fake-damages","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"airbnb-statement-to-fox"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","finance"],"unknowns":["Whether the host's photos were altered, and by what tool, is unknown: no forensic finding, host statement or Airbnb finding on AI is reported.","Airbnb's own review of the photos is described only as a 'careful review'. No source says Airbnb used an AI system to assess them.","The stay dates, the day of the damage claim and the outcome date are not stated beyond 'earlier this year' and the Guardian's 2 August 2025 date.","Whether the guest paid any part of the reimbursement before the appeal succeeded is not stated.","The US outlets give the claim as about 16,000 dollars (Fox Business) and the Guardian as more than 12,000 pounds. The inspected sources do not itemise the claim."],"geography":{"basis":"The Guardian places the apartment in Manhattan, New York, and describes the guest as London-based. Airbnb's location and the Guardian's publication are not used.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"The Guardian report and two rewrites were read in full. The host and guest are not named and the apartment address is not given. The AI element rests on the guest's belief and Airbnb's statement that it could not verify the images. Claims stay at reported status.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The guest says differences between two photos of one table lead her to believe they were manipulated or AI-generated. Airbnb told the host it could not verify the images. The host did not respond, and no source shows an AI tool was used. Fox Business and the New York Post headlines state AI use more strongly than the Guardian body supports.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Manhattan Airbnb: guest says host's damage-claim photos were manipulated or AI-generated, Airbnb first ordered payment then refunded her","summary":"The Guardian reported on 2 August 2025 that a London-based academic who rented a Manhattan apartment through Airbnb in 2025 was accused by the host of more than 12,000 pounds of damage, supported by photos including a cracked coffee table. She says differences between two photos of the table show they were digitally manipulated or AI-generated. Airbnb first told her to reimburse 5,314 pounds after reviewing the photos, then, five days after Guardian Money asked about the case, accepted her appeal, credited 500 pounds and, after she refused an 854-pound offer, refunded her booking cost of 4,269 pounds, and the host's negative review of her was taken down. Airbnb apologised. Airbnb told the host it could not verify the images he submitted and warned him. The host did not respond to the Guardian. No source establishes that AI was used.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-08-02","aiSystem":"None identified (guest suspects the host's damage-claim photos were digitally manipulated or AI-generated; no tool or forensic finding is reported)","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Guardian reports Airbnb initially told the guest to reimburse the host 5,314 pounds on the strength of the host's photos and the host placed a negative review on her profile; Airbnb later refunded her booking cost in full and the review was taken down.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One guest reported subjected to the damage claim. Other Airbnb customers who might face similar claims are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/aug/02/airbnb-guest-damage-claim-refund-photos","primarySourceLabel":"The Guardian (2 Aug 2025)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:51.915494+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.206649+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-us-eightfold-ai-match-score-applicant-screening-class-action","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"about unsuspecting job applicants and to score them from 0 to 5 for potential employers based on","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This results in a Match Score, which ranges from 0 through 5 in increments of","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Employers then use these reports to sift through","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"But candidates who apply for jobs at companies that use those tools are not given notice and a chance to dispute errors","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that Eightfold collects applicant information and scores applicants from 0 to 5 by predicted likelihood of success for employers, that employers use these reports to sift applications, and that Eightfold provides no notice, access or dispute rights.","causal_attribution":"These are the plaintiffs' allegations as stated in a filing. The filing establishes only its own contents."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In or around July 2025,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"applied online via Microsoft’s website for","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Manager-Responsible AI position two days after she applied, without being invited to interview.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"On or around December 16, 2025,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"received an automated rejection for the Senior Technical Program","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint says one plaintiff applied to Microsoft in or around July 2025 and again around 16 December 2025, and received an automated rejection two days after the first application without an interview.","causal_attribution":"The complaint attributes the screening to Eightfold's Evaluation Tools used by the employer. No employer record or score was inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On or around December 17,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"applied online via Paypal’s website","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"was not asked to interview and was not given a job offer for any of the","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint says the other plaintiff applied to PayPal on or around 17 December 2025 for two roles and was not asked to interview or given an offer for any position applied to.","causal_attribution":"The complaint alleges Eightfold's tools were applied to this application. Reuters reports the plaintiffs believe the tools played a role. The link to any specific rejection is not established."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"is being sued in California for allegedly compiling reports used to","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"On January 20, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"sued in California state court on behalf of all U.S. job seekers who applied for jobs","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Neither was hired, and both believe that Eightfold's tools played a role.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The proposed class action was filed by two women with STEM backgrounds who believe Eightfold’s AI tools hurt their careers by unfairly screening them out","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Reuters reports the plaintiffs, who are not named by this record, filed a proposed class action in California state court on 20 January 2026 on behalf of all US job seekers evaluated with the tools, and that neither plaintiff was hired and both believe Eightfold's tools played a role.","causal_attribution":"Reuters and the plaintiffs' counsel release both trace to the complaint and counsel. They are one reporting chain."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"We do not scrape social media and the like.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"said the platform operates on data shared by candidates or provided by customers.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"An Eightfold spokesperson said the platform does not scrape social media and operates on data shared by candidates or provided by customers.","causal_attribution":"Company statement to Reuters. It disputes the complaint's data-collection allegation and does not address the scoring allegation."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Document 1 Filed 03/02/26","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/24/2026.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"NOTICE OF REMOVAL Eightfold AI, Inc.'s Notice of Removal from Contra Costa Superior Court.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"MOTION to Dismiss filed by Eightfold AI Inc..","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"ORDER VACATING HEARING Re: 29 MOTION to Dismiss.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Eightfold removed the case to the US District Court for the Northern District of California on 2 March 2026 and filed a motion to dismiss. The docket shows the hearing on that motion vacated on 24 July 2026 and no ruling in the entries inspected.","causal_attribution":"Procedural facts documented by the court docket. The docket does not establish the merits."}],"effects":[{"label":"Applicants allegedly scored and screened by an undisclosed AI ranking without statutory notice or dispute rights, and not interviewed or hired","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465146/gov.uscourts.cand.465146.1.0_2.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ai-company-eightfold-sued-helping-181520410.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.outtengolden.com/newsroom/landmark-class-action-accuses-eightfold-ai-of-illegally-producing-hidden-credit-reports-on-job-applicants","kind":"organisation_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"eightfold-complaint"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72351430/kistler-v-eightfold-ai-inc/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"court-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether Eightfold's tools produced a score for either plaintiff or influenced either employer's decision is not established. The complaint and reports rest on the plaintiffs' allegations and belief.","The start date of the alleged practice is not stated. The incident range covers only the plaintiffs' dated applications (July to December 2025). The complaint says one plaintiff has applied to Microsoft and other employers since 2023. Earlier applications are not described and are outside this record.","Whether the defendant's tools collected social media or other third-party data about the plaintiffs is disputed by Eightfold and unresolved.","The other plaintiff's location is not stated in the sources inspected.","The outcome of the pending motion to dismiss is unknown. Docket entry 46 (24 Sep 2026, a statement of recent decision) had no readable content.","Microsoft and PayPal are not defendants. Microsoft declined comment and no PayPal response was inspected."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint states that one plaintiff lives in, applied from and was denied employment while living in Contra Costa County, California. The removed case is in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The other plaintiff's location is not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The complaint was read from the copy attached to the defendant's notice of removal, with Reuters, the plaintiffs' counsel release and the court docket. The plaintiffs are described by role and not named. All allegations are attributed and remain at reported status. The AIAAIC archive entry had no description and is not cited.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges Eightfold's Match Score model scored and ranked the plaintiffs' applications for the employers. Eightfold's statement disputes the alleged data collection. No document showing a score for either plaintiff was inspected.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: two applicants sue Eightfold AI over 0-to-5 applicant scores used in hiring","summary":"Two job applicants filed a proposed class action on 20 January 2026 in California state court (removed to federal court on 2 March 2026) against Eightfold AI Inc. The complaint alleges that Eightfold's hiring tools collect applicant data and produce a 0-to-5 'Match Score' that employers use to rank candidates, without the notice, access and dispute rights the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a California statute require. One plaintiff says she applied to Microsoft in or around July 2025 and again in December 2025 and received an automated rejection two days after the first application. The other says she applied to PayPal in December 2025. Both say they were not interviewed or hired and believe Eightfold's tools played a role. Eightfold says it does not scrape social media and operates on data candidates or customers provide. The allegations are unproven and Eightfold filed a motion to dismiss (no ruling appears in the docket entries inspected).","incidentDate":"2025-07-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-12-17","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-01-21","aiSystem":"Eightfold AI talent-evaluation tools including the 'Match Score' applicant ranking model","aiProduct":"Eightfold Match Score","aiCompany":"Eightfold AI Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The complaint alleges that two applicants were scored by Eightfold's tools, not interviewed and not hired, and that they received none of the disclosures or dispute rights the statutes require. The plaintiffs believe the tools played a role in their rejections. Eightfold's involvement in any particular rejection is not established.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Two plaintiffs each allege they were scored and not hired. The proposed class of all US applicants evaluated with the tools is not counted because no class has been certified and no other applicant's experience is reported.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465146/gov.uscourts.cand.465146.1.0_2.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Notice of removal with the state-court complaint, plaintiffs v. Eightfold AI Inc. (N.D. Cal., filed 2 Mar 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:41.995961+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.000724+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-lacey-insurance-discovery-relief-denied-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 8 para 20: 'I have struck, and decline to'; 'consider, any of the supplemental briefs'; 'I decline to award any of the discovery relief'; p. 7 para 17: 'The initial, undisclosed use of AI products to'; 'generate the first draft of the brief was flat-out wrong.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought because her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research.","causal_attribution":"The order itself connects the struck briefs and denial of relief to counsel's undisclosed AI use, failure to cite-check and re-submission of the defective brief (paras 17-20)."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 2 para 5: 'approximately nine of the 27 legal'; 'citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect in some way. At least two of the'; 'authorities cited do not exist at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order records that about nine of the 27 citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect and that at least two cited authorities do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The special master's own after-the-fact review, as recorded in the order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 10 para 24: 'clearly not at fault for the AI debacle'; 'She will not, however, be financially'; para 25: 'I decline to order any sanction'; conclusion: 'aggregate amount of $31,100.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order makes the two firms jointly and severally pay $31,100 in aggregate, states the client was not at fault and will not be financially responsible for the awards, and declines any sanction against individual lawyers.","causal_attribution":"Allocation of financial responsibility is directly recorded in the order."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, declaration p. 46 para 3: 'generative AI capabilities found in CoCounsel and Westlaw Precision and'; p. 47 para 4: 'It is unclear to me whether'; 'research tools I utilized returned some erroneous information.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied in part on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he cannot tell whether particular errors arose from his transcription or from a tool.","causal_attribution":"The declarant's own statement; the order does not determine which tool produced each error."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, joint response section II p. 76: 'None of the K&L Gates attorneys who worked on the subject brief used any'; order p. 3 para 7: 'the attorneys at K&L Gates didn’t'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The second firm states that none of its lawyers who worked on the brief used or had access to AI tools or knew that AI had been used until the special master's inquiries.","causal_attribution":"The firm's own submission; the order records that the special master had no reason to doubt the sworn statements."}],"effects":[{"label":"Loss of requested discovery relief after the claimant's briefs were struck","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English; read on 2026-10-09 from the retained PDF text of the 77-page filing: order pp. 2-10, appendix inventory p. 11, originating lawyer's declaration pp. 46-47 and the firms' joint response section II p. 76. PDF page 1 yielded no text. Not every appended exhibit was read.","independence_group":"lacey-ecf119"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which tool, if any, produced each erroneous citation or quotation; the declarant says he cannot distinguish his transcription errors from tool output.","Whether the requested discovery relief would have been granted had the briefs been accurate.","The later course of the insurance action and where the AI-assisted drafting took place.","Paragraph 1 of the order (PDF page 1) was not inspected because the page yielded no extractable text."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was issued by a special master in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The record does not state where the AI-assisted drafting took place or where the claimant lives, so event and affected-person countries are left unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"A filed court order directly establishes that the claimant's briefs were struck and her discovery relief denied because of AI-generated false citations in her lawyers' filings, with the monetary award placed on the firms. The tool identities are attributed to the declarant and kept as reported.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The filed order records that a lawyer used AI tools to generate the research outline for the claimant's brief and that the resulting brief contained false citations and quotations (about nine of 27 wrong, at least two non-existent). The special master read those authorities, found they did not exist, and on that basis struck the briefs and denied the discovery relief, writing that the use of AI affirmatively misled him. The declarant names CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini but cannot say which tool produced each error, so the per-tool contribution is unestablished.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Insurance claimant loses discovery relief after her lawyers file AI-generated false citations; special master's order sanctions the two firms $31,100","summary":"In an order dated 5 May 2025 and filed on 6 May in Lacey v. State Farm (C.D. Cal.), a special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research: about nine of 27 citations were wrong and at least two cited authorities did not exist. One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he could not tell whether particular errors came from his transcription or from a tool; co-counsel at the second firm say they used no AI tools and did not know AI had been used. The order makes the two firms jointly pay $31,100, states the client was not at fault and will not bear the awards, and imposes no penalty on individual lawyers.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-05","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-05-06","aiSystem":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, named in one lawyer's sworn declaration as the generative AI tools used for the research outline; the order itself refers to 'various AI tools' and does not establish which tool produced each error","aiProduct":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Gemini (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated citations; the $31,100 award falls on the firms, not on her.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One claimant whose briefs were struck and whose discovery relief was denied (order paras 20 and 24). She did not use the AI tools herself, so participant users is 0. The lawyers and firms bear the monetary award but are not counted as harmed persons.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Lacey v. State Farm General Insurance Co., C.D. Cal. 2:24-cv-05205, ECF 119: special master's sanctions order dated 5 May 2025, filed 6 May 2025 (with appendix)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T10:29:01.113121+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:12:38.363121+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025","ai-citations","court-sanction","legal-research","consequential-response"]},{"id":"2026-surat-customs-penalty-ai-hallucinated-citations-supreme-court","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The present appeal arose out of an Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposing a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on the appellant under Section 114, Customs Act, 1962, for misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The challenge to the said penalty before the Gujarat High Court failed, as the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20 January 2026.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The penalty was imposed for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to attract a lower tariff.'; 'the High Court dismissed his challenge on January 20, 2026, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds, and the Gujarat High Court dismissed his challenge on 20 January 2026.","causal_attribution":"Facts of the proceedings as recited in the Supreme Court judgment, reported by legal outlets; the judgment itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Upon verifying such judgments and articles, it does appear that the second respondent has relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations. A further investigation has also revealed that some of the case laws relied upon by the second respondent, which do exist, do not lay down the ratio deduced therefrom and it appears to be a hallucination of AI,' the Court observed.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Upon verification, the court found that the second respondent had \"relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations.\" It further found that some case laws which did exist did not lay down the legal propositions attributed to them, and that this \"appears to be a hallucination of AI\".'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Legal reports quote the Supreme Court finding that the penalty order relied on nonexistent case law or fake citations, and on existing cases that did not support the attributed legal propositions, which it described as apparent AI hallucination.","causal_attribution":"Finding of the Supreme Court after its own verification of the cited material, as quoted by the reports. The court attributes the defects to AI in qualified terms ('appears to be'); the tool is not named."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The use of AI in this case, resulting in reliance placed by the second respondent on material which is dubious, proves fatal to the sustainability of the order imposing penalty on the appellant. Such circumstances compel us to interfere and remand the case,' the Court said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The proceedings were revived for fresh adjudication by an officer of the same rank other than the officer who had passed the original order.'; 'The Court left it to the wisdom of the appointing authority to initiate such action against the author of the Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025 as may be warranted in the circumstances, in accordance with law.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, set aside a customs penalty of over ₹425 crore'; 'A bench of Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Sheel Nagu did not examine the merits of the customs case at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Верховний суд Індії 2 вересня 2026 року розглянув справу щодо використання штучного інтелекту працівником митниці, який послався на неіснуючі судові справи та фальшиві цитати, накладаючи штраф у розмірі близько $45 млн' (the Supreme Court of India on 2 September 2026 considered a case of a customs officer's use of AI, who cited non-existent cases and fake quotations while imposing a fine of about $45 million)","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Legal reports say that on 2 September 2026 the Supreme Court treated reliance on dubious AI material as fatal to the penalty order, set aside that order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, and revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank. The reports also say the court left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority.","causal_attribution":"Holding of the Supreme Court as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"a ₹425 crore customs penalty order resting on non-existent and misattributed case law that the Supreme Court found appeared to be AI hallucination stood against the trader for about eleven months and was upheld by the Gujarat High Court","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the trader had to take the case to the Supreme Court, which voided the order but revived the proceedings for fresh adjudication","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full body (including JSON-LD article body) read by curl on 2026-09-29. Reports and quotes the Supreme Court judgment of 2 September 2026. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/09/03/supreme-court-sets-aside-%E2%82%B9425-crore-customs-penalty-over-ai-generated-fake-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"SCC Times case note, read by curl on 2026-09-29; summarises the same judgment (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1741). Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://upstox.com/news/personal-finance/tax/how-a-diamond-trader-got-relief-from-a-425-crore-penalty-after-customs-used-ai-generated-citations/article-199828/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Upstox (4 September 2026), read by curl on 2026-09-29; based on the same judgment. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://sud.ua/uk/news/abroad/371427-mytnyk-poviryv-shi-i-vypysav-shtraf-na-45-mln-verkhovnyi-sud-use-skasuvav","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"uk","translation_note":"Ukrainian-language report (6 September 2026) read through the r.jina.ai relay on 2026-09-29 (direct fetch 403); translated by the reviewer. Cited only for context; it converts the penalty to about US$45 million. Reinspected in the retained body on 2026-10-06; no direct judgment obtained in this review. The Ukrainian article body was read with AI language assistance; it explicitly credits Supreme Court Observer and supplies context only.","independence_group":"sc-judgment-gadiya"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","public_services","finance"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the customs officer used and how it was used in drafting the order.","Whether the trader paid any part of the penalty or incurred other financial consequences while the order stood, and the trader's litigation costs.","The outcome of the revived adjudication and whether any action was taken against the officer.","The trader's country and place of residence."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, challenged in the Gujarat High Court and decided by the Supreme Court of India. The trader's country of residence is not stated in the read reports, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Legal reporting describes a concrete penalty imposed on a trader through an administrative decision that used apparently AI-generated false authorities. The reported Supreme Court ruling connects reliance on that material to the decision to set the order aside. The trader is unnamed and the underlying customs allegation remains undecided. All cited accounts derive from the same judgment, whose text has not been inspected. No payment of the penalty or quantified financial loss is asserted.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Bar & Bench, SCC Times and Upstox report that the Supreme Court verified the authorities used in the officer's penalty order, found nonexistent cases, false citations and misattributed propositions, and described them as apparent AI hallucination. The reports connect this material to the officer's order imposing the penalty, which the court set aside on that basis. This supports informed_decision_about: the human officer used the material in an adverse decision about the trader. The tool and how it was used remain unknown, and the judgment itself has not been inspected.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"India's Supreme Court overturns customs penalty citing apparent AI hallucinations","summary":"On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Surat imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 (about ₹425 crore) on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The trader's challenge was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on 20 January 2026. Before the Supreme Court the trader argued that judgments and articles cited in the penalty order had been generated using artificial intelligence. On 2 September 2026 a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, after checking the material, found that the order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on real cases that did not lay down the propositions attributed to them, which the court said 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'. Holding that the use of AI and reliance on this dubious material was fatal to the order, the court set aside both the penalty order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, sent the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority. The AI tool used is not named in the read reports.","incidentDate":"2025-10-08","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-02","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-02","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI tool reportedly used in authorities cited in a customs penalty order; legal reports quote the Supreme Court describing nonexistent and misattributed case law as apparent AI hallucination","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A diamond trader was subjected for about eleven months to a ₹425 crore customs penalty order, and lost a High Court challenge to it, before India's Supreme Court voided the order because it relied on non-existent and misattributed case law that the court found appeared to be AI hallucination (Supreme Court judgment as reported by Bar & Bench, SCC Online and Upstox). The underlying proceedings were revived.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One trader, the appellant, on whom the penalty was imposed. The trader did not use the AI; the customs officer did. No other person is reported harmed.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-scraps-425-crore-penalty-over-fake-citations-ai-hallucinations-in-customs-order","primarySourceLabel":"Bar & Bench, 2 September 2026: Supreme Court scraps ₹425 crore penalty over fake citations, AI hallucinations in customs order","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:08:50.773251+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:47.973979+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["india","surat","customs","supreme-court","hallucinated-citations","institutional-use","administrative-decision","penalty"]}]}