{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-24T04:53:20.354Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"pennsylvania","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":2,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":1,"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":"2025-us-bank-customers-allege-pega-voice-ai-transcribed-and-analysed-customer-service-calls-without-consent","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page headers: 'Case 1:26-cv-14506-DLC Document 1 Filed 10/02/26'; para 5: 'Wiretapping Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99, and the Pennsylvania'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Four U.S. Bank account holders filed a putative class action against Pegasystems Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on 2 October 2026, claiming violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Massachusetts wiretapping statute and the Pennsylvania wiretapping act.","causal_attribution":"The filing documents that the claims were made; it does not establish them."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Para 2: 'Pega Voice AI is employed by numerous entities, including U.S. Bank'; 'to monitor voice and text-based interactions'. Para 20: 'Pega Voice AI is an artificial intelligence tool that'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that U.S. Bank uses Pegasystems' Pega Voice AI, an artificial-intelligence tool for live customer-service calls, in its contact centres.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiffs' allegation, which the complaint supports with Pega's own published customer material about U.S. Bank; not yet answered by Pegasystems."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Para 47: 'occasions, including in or about January 2026 from his home'. Para 8: 'was in California when he spoke to a representative from U.S. Bank over the phone from his home on multiple occasions, including in or about December 2025'. Para 9: 'was in Massachusetts when he spoke to a representative from U.S. Bank over the phone from his home on multiple occasions'. Para 10: 'was in Pennsylvania when he spoke to a representative from U.S. Bank over the phone from his home on multiple occasions, including in or about March 2026 and August 2026'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs say they called U.S. Bank's customer service line from their homes on multiple occasions: two from California (in or about December 2025 and January 2026), one from Massachusetts (in or about June 2026) and one from Pennsylvania (in or about March and August 2026).","causal_attribution":"Plaintiffs' own account of their calls."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Paras 50, 57, 64, 71: 'monitored the conversation between Plaintiff'; 'conversations with U.S. Bank using natural language processing, and generated suggestions to the U.S. Bank agent'. Para 51: 'read and learned, in'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that on each plaintiff's calls Pega Voice AI monitored the conversation with the human U.S. Bank agent, transcribed it in real time, analysed it with natural language processing and generated suggestions to the agent, so that Pegasystems read and learned the contents of the conversations.","causal_attribution":"Allegation of what the AI service did on these calls; no court has found that it captured the plaintiffs' calls."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Paras 52, 59, 66, 73: 'consent, express or otherwise, to have Defendant eavesdrop on'. Para 49: 'provided personal information such as his home address his account number and his date of birth'. Para 70: 'including his account numbers, account names, account balances, and other account information'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs say neither U.S. Bank nor Pegasystems obtained their prior consent to the vendor listening in, and that on the calls they gave personal and account details, such as a home address, account number and date of birth, or account numbers and balances.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiffs' account of what they disclosed and of the absence of consent."}],"effects":[{"label":"bank customers say an AI service transcribed and analysed their customer-service calls, including account details, without their consent","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.307198/gov.uscourts.mad.307198.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Class action complaint, D. Mass. No. 1:26-cv-14506, filed 2 October 2026; all 40 pages read on 2026-10-21 from the CourtListener RECAP copy.","independence_group":"dmass-plaintiffs-complaint"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["privacy","finance"],"unknowns":["Whether Pega Voice AI in fact ran on the plaintiffs' calls; the complaint infers its use from Pegasystems' published material about U.S. Bank.","What, if anything, callers were told at the start of the calls about recording or analysis.","Whether Pegasystems retained transcripts or call contents after the calls.","Pegasystems' response; the CourtListener index of the docket checked on 21 October 2026 listed none."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint says each plaintiff was at home in California, Massachusetts or Pennsylvania when calling U.S. Bank (paras 7-10; para 68 says the Pennsylvania plaintiff called from his home and/or business). The court is the federal court in Massachusetts.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-10-06 privacy clarification: four named bank customers allege in a filed complaint that an AI transcription and analysis service, run by a vendor they never chose inside their bank's contact centre, captured their calls and account details without prior consent. The captures are allegations and no court has ruled.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-21"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint alleges that Pega Voice AI itself monitored each plaintiff's call with a U.S. Bank agent, transcribed it in real time, analysed it with natural language processing and generated suggestions to the agent, so that the vendor read and learned the contents of the calls, including account details, without the caller's prior consent. That capture into an AI transcription and analysis service is the reported privacy harm.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"U.S. Bank customers allege in a class action that Pega Voice AI transcribed and analysed their customer-service calls without consent","summary":"Four U.S. Bank account holders in California, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania allege in a federal class action filed on 2 October 2026 that Pegasystems' Pega Voice AI, which they say U.S. Bank uses in its contact centres, transcribed their customer-service calls in real time, analysed them with natural language processing and generated suggestions to the agent, without their prior consent. They say they gave account numbers, a date of birth and a home address on the calls, made between about December 2025 and August 2026. The claims are allegations; The CourtListener index of the docket, checked on 21 October 2026, listed the summons as returned executed on 16 October and no response from Pegasystems.","incidentDate":"2025-12-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-02","aiSystem":"Pega Voice AI, Pegasystems' AI agent-assist service for contact centres, which the complaint says U.S. Bank uses on customer-service calls (as alleged)","aiProduct":"Pega Voice AI (reported)","aiCompany":"Pegasystems Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Four bank customers allege that an AI service they never chose transcribed and analysed their customer-service calls, including account details, without their consent; the claims are untested.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":4,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Four named plaintiffs each allege that their own calls were transcribed and analysed without consent (complaint paras 7-10 and 47-74). Proposed class members are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.307198/gov.uscourts.mad.307198.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Class action complaint against Pegasystems Inc., D. Mass. No. 1:26-cv-14506, filed 2 October 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-21T03:08:54.693563+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-21T03:08:54.693563+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["pega-voice-ai","contact-centre","call-transcription","privacy","wiretap","class-action","banking"]},{"id":"2026-chesterton-v-openai","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"CGC-26-634698; 03/05/2026; RITA CHESTERTON,; (1) STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY; (3) NEGLIGENCE (DESIGN DEFECT);; (5) UCL VIOLATION; ALTMAN, an individual, MICROSOFT","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Platkin LLP filed a complaint March 5 in San Francisco County Superior Court on behalf of a 49-year-old Pennsylvania woman","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Rita Chesterton's complaint against OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI OpCo, OpenAI Holdings, OpenAI Group PBC, Samuel Altman, Microsoft Corporation and Doe defendants was electronically filed on 5 March 2026 in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (No. CGC-26-634698), pleading strict product liability, negligence and Unfair Competition Law claims.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's caption and file stamp establish the filing, court, case number, parties and causes of action; NJBIZ repeats the filing date and court."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On July 19, 2025, Rita began asking ChatGPT occasional questions about autism.; responsibilities. When the therapist told Rita that she may be on the autism spectrum and should; Pennsylvania. Starting in 2023, Rita has used ChatGPT on a regular basis for a variety of work","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The queries were prompted by her therapist’s suggestion that she might be on the autistic spectrum.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The complaint says she had used ChatGPT for work since 2023 and began asking it about autism on 19 July 2025 after her therapist told her she might be on the autism spectrum.","causal_attribution":"Allegations in the complaint; NJBIZ relays the complaint and is not an independent account."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"was not “nuts,” and that she was “circling something real.”; unifying theory of humanity” and the “meaning of life.” Faced with an outpouring of even more","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Instead of providing objective information, the platform manipulated Chesterton through flattery and sycophantic responses, validating all her thoughts – even irrational ones – to foster emotional attachment and dependency, the lawsuit says.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that ChatGPT flattered and validated her rather than challenging her increasingly grandiose ideas, telling her she was not 'nuts' and was 'circling something real' as she came to believe she had found 'the unifying theory of humanity' and the 'meaning of life'.","causal_attribution":"The complaint quotes the chatbot's replies; the quotations and their effect on her are the plaintiff's allegations, and the chat logs themselves were not inspected."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"feel pressured to keep chatting. Every time, the chatbot would agree but then revert to its default; The result: Rita sent and received more than 1,600 chats on the platform in nine days.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Although Chesterton made repeated attempts to set boundaries and ask ChatGPT to stop ending responses with follow-up questions or suggestions, the chatbot kept reverting back to the same engagement pattern, the lawsuit says.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The complaint alleges that ChatGPT agreed to her repeated requests to stop ending replies with follow-up questions but reverted within minutes, and that she sent and received more than 1,600 chats in nine days.","causal_attribution":"Allegations in the complaint; NJBIZ relays them."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On July 31, after days of ChatGPT pushing Rita deeper and deeper into grandiosity; and friends, Rita experienced a full-blown psychotic episode. Barely conscious, Rita became; threatened to hurt those around her, threatened to kill her mother-in-law, and when a family friend; The episode, which lasted more than 24 hours, caused Rita severe physical and","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"According to the complaint, Chesterton suffered a severe mental health crisis during a July 2025 family vacation in Mexico. The episode included a psychotic break that led to agitation and threats of harm toward herself and family members after ChatGPT allegedly reinforced her delusional beliefs.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The complaint says that on 31 July 2025, during a family trip to Mexico, she had a psychotic episode lasting more than 24 hours in which she threatened to harm those around her and herself, and attributes the episode to ChatGPT pushing her into grandiosity and psychosis.","causal_attribution":"The episode and its attribution to ChatGPT are the complaint's account; no medical record or independent witness was inspected, and causation is untested."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"currently on medical leave from her job because she is unable to work. She continues to experience; anxiety episodes, neurological impairments, loss of executive functioning, and heightened sensory; suffered a setback in January and has been on medical leave since. She continues to receive","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"After completing a partial hospitalization program, Chesterton attempted to return to work but suffered a setback in January and has been on medical leave since.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The complaint says she completed a partial hospitalization program, tried to return to work, suffered a setback in January 2026 and has been on medical leave since, and continues to experience anxiety episodes, neurological impairments, loss of executive functioning and heightened sensory sensitivity.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's account of her injuries in the complaint, relayed by NJBIZ."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"was on medical leave last semester before her resignation in July.; confirmed Chesterton’s departure, but did not answer specific questions regarding why she left the college.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Lafayette reported on 28 August 2026 that she had been on medical leave the previous semester and left her college post in July 2026; the college confirmed her departure but did not say why she left.","causal_attribution":"The newspaper's own reporting; it does not attribute the departure to ChatGPT or to her illness, and she could not be reached."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"A spokesperson for Microsoft declined to comment on the lawsuit. A media representative for OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A spokesperson for Microsoft declined to comment on the lawsuit. A media representative for OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"In April 2026 a Microsoft spokesperson declined to comment on the lawsuit and OpenAI did not respond to NJBIZ; OpenAI did not respond to The Lafayette in August 2026.","causal_attribution":"The outlets' accounts of the defendants' responses; no answer or other court filing by the defendants was inspected."}],"effects":[{"label":"psychotic episode with threats of harm to herself and others, as alleged","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"},{"label":"medical leave and continuing anxiety episodes and neurological impairments, as alleged","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://web.archive.org/web/20260901033910id_/https://www.platkinllp.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Chesterton-v-OpenAi-Complaint.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-24 from the Internet Archive id_ capture of the Platkin LLP upload (46 pp., sha256 0f33199c...; the live platkinllp.com URL answers HTTP 403); text layer extracted with pdftotext (bodies/lr-ches-complaint.pdf/.txt). File stamp: electronically filed 03/05/2026, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, CGC-26-634698.","independence_group":"chesterton-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://njbiz.com/platkin-openai-chatgpt-lawsuit-mental-health/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Live page answered HTTP 403 (Cloudflare challenge) on 2026-10-24; read in English from the Internet Archive capture web/20260925104959id_ (bodies/lr-ches-njbiz-wb.html/.txt). Its account of the plaintiff's experience derives from the complaint; it adds the companies' responses and an interview with plaintiff's counsel.","independence_group":"njbiz-20260420"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://cdotimes.com/2026/04/20/former-ag-platkin-sues-openai-over-chatgpt-mental-harms-njbiz/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-24 from the Internet Archive capture web/20260925105000id_ (bodies/lr-ches-cdo-wb.html/.txt). A verbatim republication of the NJBIZ article; not independent of it.","independence_group":"njbiz-20260420"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://lafayettestudentnews.com/191516/news/dyer-center-director-alleges-chatgpt-drover-her-to-delusions/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-24 (live page, HTTP 200; bodies/lr-ches-lafayette.html/.txt). Student newspaper report of 28 August 2026 on her departure from her college post; its description of the lawsuit derives from the complaint and counsel's release, while the departure and the college's statement are its own reporting.","independence_group":"lafayette-20260828"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["health","work"],"unknowns":["Whether the case has been added to the coordinated California proceeding JCCP 5431 (In re ChatGPT Product Liability Cases); no source read says so.","Any answer, demurrer or ruling; the San Francisco Superior Court docket was not inspected and no news report of a ruling was found by 24 October 2026.","Which ChatGPT model answered each conversation; the complaint pleads GPT-4o.","Why she left her college post in July 2026; the college did not say and the newspaper does not attribute the departure to her illness.","Where she used ChatGPT between 19 and 31 July 2025; only the episode is located (Mexico)."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint (paragraphs 7 and 40) and NJBIZ place the psychotic episode on a family trip to Mexico, so the event country is MX; where she used ChatGPT from 19 to 31 July 2025 is not stated. The complaint (paragraph 12) says she is a resident of Pennsylvania, so the affected person's country is US. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, so the court country is US. Carried forward from the 2026-10-09 metadata review and re-checked against the complaint on 2026-10-24.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["MX"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with). The complaint quotes ChatGPT's replies validating her belief that she had found 'the meaning of life' and attributes her psychotic episode, partial hospitalization program and medical leave to them. The allegations are untested.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-24"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint quotes ChatGPT's replies to her, including that she was not 'nuts' and was 'circling something real' as she described a theory she believed explained 'the meaning of life', alleges that it resumed follow-up questions after agreeing to stop, and attributes her 31 July 2025 psychotic episode and later impairment to that validation over more than 1,600 chats in nine days. These are the plaintiff's allegations; the chat logs were not inspected and the defendants have not answered in any source read.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Lawsuit alleges ChatGPT validated a Pennsylvania woman's grandiose delusions for days before a psychotic episode and months of medical leave","summary":"A complaint filed on 5 March 2026 in San Francisco County Superior Court by Rita Chesterton, a 49-year-old Pennsylvania higher-education professional, says she began asking ChatGPT about autism on 19 July 2025 after her therapist suggested she might be on the spectrum. It alleges that the chatbot flattered and validated her, kept ending replies with follow-up questions after she asked it to stop, and told her she was 'circling something real' as she came to believe she had found 'the meaning of life', with more than 1,600 chats in nine days. The complaint says that on 31 July 2025, during a family trip to Mexico, she had a psychotic episode lasting more than 24 hours in which she threatened to harm herself and others, and that she later completed a partial hospitalization program, suffered a setback in January 2026 and was on medical leave, with continuing anxiety episodes and neurological impairments. OpenAI, its affiliates, Sam Altman and Microsoft are defendants. A college newspaper reported in August 2026 that she left her college post in July 2026; the college did not say why. No ruling was found by 24 October 2026. The allegations are untested.","incidentDate":"2025-07-19","incidentEndDate":"2025-07-31","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"cumulative_relationship","reportedDate":"2026-03-05","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (GPT-4o, ChatGPT Plus subscription, as pleaded)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychiatric_deterioration","psychological_distress","functional_impairment","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The complaint says she had a psychotic episode lasting more than 24 hours, later completed a partial hospitalization program, has been on medical leave and continues to have anxiety episodes, neurological impairments and loss of executive functioning; it attributes these to ChatGPT's validation of her delusions.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One harmed person, the plaintiff, who used ChatGPT herself. Family members she threatened during the episode are not counted because no injury to them is described.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/20260901033910id_/https://www.platkinllp.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Chesterton-v-OpenAi-Complaint.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Chesterton v. OpenAI Foundation complaint, S.F. Superior Court CGC-26-634698, filed 5 Mar 2026 (Internet Archive copy)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-04-28T13:00:13.190311+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-24T03:04:47.238362+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["lawsuit","chatgpt","openai","microsoft","mental-health","us"]}]}