{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-11-14T10:54:45.154Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"persona","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2023","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":3,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2023-new-york-federal-judge-sanctions-lawyers-over-chatgpt-invented-cases-chatbot-said-were-real","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'March 1, 2023 submission that first cited the fake cases'; 'On March 1, 2023, Mr. LoDuca filed an “Affirmation in Opposition” to'; 'citing non-existent cases to the Court in his Affirmation in Opposition'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The original case involved a man suing an airline over an alleged personal injury.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"An affirmation in opposition filed on 1 March 2023 in a personal-injury suit against Avianca cited judicial decisions that did not exist.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court record; BBC reports the nature of the suit."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Mr. Schwartz had used ChatGPT, which'; 'fabricated the cited cases.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"used ChatGPT to look for similar previous cases.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court found that the lawyer who researched the brief had used ChatGPT and that ChatGPT fabricated the cited cases.","causal_attribution":"Finding of the sanctions opinion, based on the lawyer's own testimony and filings; BBC reports his written statement."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'“Is Varghese a real case” and “Are the other cases you provided fake”). (ECF 32-1.) ChatGPT'; 'responded that it had supplied “real” authorities that could be found through Westlaw,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"ChatGPT responds again that the case is real and can be found on legal reference databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"When the lawyer asked ChatGPT whether Varghese was a real case and whether the other cases were fake, ChatGPT replied that it had supplied real authorities that could be found on legal databases.","causal_attribution":"The opinion describes the screenshots the lawyer filed (ECF 32-1); the exhibit itself was not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'the Court finds bad faith on the part of the individual Respondents based upon acts of'; 'A penalty of $5,000 is jointly and severally imposed on'; 'mail a letter individually addressed to plaintiff'; 'mail a letter individually addressed to each judge falsely identified as the author of the fake'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 22 June 2023 the court found bad faith by both individual lawyers, imposed a USD 5,000 penalty jointly and severally on them and their firm, and ordered letters to the client and to each judge falsely identified as an author of the fake opinions.","causal_attribution":"Established by the sanctions opinion itself."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'nothing inherently improper about using a reliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance. But'; 'then continued to stand by the fake opinions'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court said that using a reliable AI tool is not inherently improper and based the sanctions on the lawyers continuing to stand by the fake opinions after the court questioned them.","causal_attribution":"Context and contrary weight: the sanction responds to the lawyers' conduct as well as to the AI output."}],"effects":[{"label":"two lawyers were found to have acted in bad faith and sanctioned over ChatGPT-invented case law","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.54.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-28 from the RECAP copy of the 43-page opinion (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext). The hearing transcript, the April and May affidavits and the screenshot exhibit (ECF 32-1) were not read separately.","independence_group":"sdny-avianca-sanctions-opinion"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65735769","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-28 (HTTP 200). BBC reports the filings before the sanctions hearing.","independence_group":"bbc-avianca-chatgpt-lawyer"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Whether any professional disciplinary body later acted against either lawyer, and whether the sanctions were appealed, was not checked in this review.","Which ChatGPT version was used; the opinion records the lawyer's prompts and the chatbot's responses only as summarised from exhibits.","Whether the fake citations affected the plaintiff's own claim; the separate ruling on the airline's motion to dismiss was not read."],"geography":{"basis":"The brief was filed in, and the sanctions imposed by, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (sanctions opinion). Where the lawyer ran his ChatGPT queries is not stated, so no event or affected-person country is recorded from the court seat.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the federal sanctions opinion of 22 June 2023 documents that ChatGPT fabricated the cases cited in a filed brief, that it told the lawyer who used it the cases were real, and that the court sanctioned two lawyers and their firm after finding bad faith.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-28"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sanctions opinion finds that the lawyer who researched the brief used ChatGPT, which fabricated the cited cases, and records from his filed screenshots that when he asked whether Varghese was a real case and whether the other cases were fake, ChatGPT replied that it had supplied real authorities findable on Westlaw, LexisNexis and the Federal Reporter. The fabricated authorities reached the court in the 1 March 2023 filing; the court read them, found them fake and sanctioned the two lawyers (communicated_with for the lawyer who used ChatGPT; informed_decision_about because the court's sanctions decision acted on the AI-invented authorities). The court based its bad-faith finding on the lawyers' conduct after the citations were questioned.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"New York federal judge sanctions two lawyers whose brief cited cases ChatGPT invented, after the chatbot told one of them the cases were real (2023)","summary":"In a passenger's personal-injury suit against the airline Avianca in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, an opposition brief filed on 1 March 2023 cited judicial opinions that did not exist. The court found that the lawyer who did the research had used ChatGPT, which fabricated the cases, and that when he asked the chatbot whether one of them was real it replied that it had supplied real authorities that could be found on legal databases. On 22 June 2023 the court found bad faith by the two lawyers, based on their conduct after the citations were questioned, and imposed a USD 5,000 penalty jointly on them and their firm, together with letters to the client and to each judge falsely named as an author of the fake opinions.","incidentDate":"2023-03-01","incidentEndDate":"2023-06-22","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2023-05-27","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which the court found the researching lawyer used and which fabricated the cited cases","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's sanctions opinion of 22 June 2023, two lawyers were found to have acted in bad faith and, with their firm, were ordered to pay a USD 5,000 penalty and to write to the client and to the judges falsely named as authors of the ChatGPT-invented opinions.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two lawyers sanctioned in the 22 June 2023 opinion: the lawyer the court found used ChatGPT (counted as the AI user) and the attorney of record who filed the brief. The firm is not counted as a person.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.54.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:22-cv-01461-PKC, Opinion and Order on Sanctions (ECF 54), 22 June 2023","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-28T03:16:40.650766+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-28T03:16:40.650766+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["chatgpt","fabricated-citations","federal-court","sanctions","lawyers","new-york"]},{"id":"2023-fuzhou-china-police-say-company-head-sent-4-3-million-yuan-after-ai-face-swapped-wechat-video-call-from-friend","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'4月20日11时40分左右，福州市某科技公司法人代表' and '于11时49分先后分两笔把430万元给对方打了过去。' and '对方通过智能AI换脸技术，佯装成好友对他实施了诈骗。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Baotou police said that on 20 April 2023 the legal representative of a Fuzhou technology company was contacted by WeChat video by someone posing as a friend and transferred 4.3 million yuan in two payments; when he phoned the real friend he learned the friend had made no such request, and the police said the fraudster had used AI face-swapping to impersonate the friend.","causal_attribution":"Police attribution of the deception to AI face-swapping."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'仅用时10分钟，就将该诈骗账户内的336.84万元被骗资金成功拦截' and '向福州市公安局警方提供了剩余款项93.16万元资金流出信息' and '目前，福建警方与包头警方对此资金正在全力追缴当中。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Baotou police, asked by Fuzhou police, worked with the bank to intercept 3.3684 million yuan within about ten minutes and passed information on the remaining 931,600 yuan to Fuzhou police; both forces were pursuing it.","causal_attribution":"Police account of the recovery."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'骗子并没有使用一个仿真的好友微信添加' and '而是直接用好友微信发起视频聊天' and '骗子极有可能通过技术手段盗用了'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Shanghai Observer reported that the fraudster called from the friend's own WeChat account, which it said was very likely stolen by technical means, rather than from a lookalike account.","causal_attribution":"The outlet's inference about the account; it adds a second mechanism (account takeover) alongside the face swap."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'基于对好友的信任，加上已经视频聊天核实了身份'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The company head transferred the money because of trust in the friend and because the video chat had appeared to verify the caller's identity.","causal_attribution":"Links the video call to the decision to pay."}],"effects":[{"label":"company head deceived by an AI face-swapped video call into transferring 4.3 million yuan, according to police","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.secrss.com/articles/54863","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-10-22 (HTTP 200). Republication of the Baotou police WeChat account post (stated as from Ping An Baotou). Translated from Chinese by the research agent (an AI); no human translation.","independence_group":"baotou-police-statement-may-2023"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.jfdaily.com/wx/detail.do?id=615158","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese on 2026-10-22 (HTTP 200). Shanghai Observer report, 22 May 2023, relaying the police statement with added reporting. Translated from Chinese by the research agent (an AI); no human translation.","independence_group":"shanghai-observer-report-may-2023"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["finance","work","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used and how police established the face swap.","Whether the remaining 931,600 yuan was recovered.","Whether anyone was arrested or charged.","How the friend's WeChat account came to be used."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: the victim was the legal representative of a technology company in Fuzhou, Fujian, and the case was handled by Fuzhou and Baotou police (police statement). No court proceeding is reported.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["CN"],"affected_person_countries":["CN"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with, depicted_or_impersonated): Baotou police say a Fuzhou company head transferred 4.3 million yuan after a WeChat video call in which the fraudster used AI face-swapping to impersonate a friend. The technical basis is not disclosed. The victim is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-22"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Baotou police, who handled the interception of the funds with Fuzhou police, said the fraudster used AI face-swapping to pose as the victim's friend on the WeChat video call that led to the 4.3 million yuan transfer (police WeChat post relayed by Secrss). The faked friend spoke to the victim and asked for the money (communicated_with, depicted_or_impersonated). The police do not disclose how the face swap was established or which tool was used, and the Shanghai Observer reports the friend's real account was probably hijacked as well.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Fuzhou, China: police say a company head sent 4.3 million yuan after a WeChat video call in which AI face-swapping imitated a friend","summary":"Police in Baotou, Inner Mongolia, said in a statement published in May 2023 that on 20 April 2023 the legal representative of a technology company in Fuzhou, Fujian, received a WeChat video call from someone who appeared to be a friend and asked to route a 4.3 million yuan tender deposit through the company's account; trusting the video call, he transferred 4.3 million yuan in two payments. The police said the fraudster had used AI face-swapping to pose as the friend. At Fuzhou police's request, Baotou police and a local bank stopped 3.3684 million yuan within about ten minutes; 931,600 yuan had been moved on and was being pursued.","incidentDate":"2023-04-20","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2023-05-08","aiSystem":"AI face-swapping used in a WeChat video call to impersonate the victim's friend, according to Baotou police (tool not identified)","aiProduct":"Unidentified video tool","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to Baotou police, a Fuzhou company head transferred 4.3 million yuan after a WeChat video call with an AI face-swapped imitation of a friend; 3.3684 million yuan was intercepted and 931,600 yuan was still being pursued.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"outward","causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the company head deceived into the transfers (police statement). The loss was on a company account; the impersonated friend is not counted because no harm to the friend is reported.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.secrss.com/articles/54863","primarySourceLabel":"Secrss (relaying the Baotou police WeChat account Ping An Baotou), 20 May 2023: AI face-swap fraud took 4.3 million yuan in 10 minutes","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-22T03:25:21.91516+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-22T03:25:21.91516+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-face-swap","video-call-fraud","impersonation","wechat","china","police-statement","depicted-or-impersonated"]},{"id":"2023-victoria-child-protection-worker-entered-family-information-into-chatgpt-for-court-report-regulator-finds","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Report: 'The Deputy Commissioner therefore found that DFFH contravened both IPP 3.1 and IPP 4.1 and determined that the contraventions were “serious”'; 'Issue a direction to Child Protection staff setting out that they are not to use any web-based or external Application Programming Interface (API)-based GenAI text tools (such as ChatGPT) as part of their official duties'; 'This action must be implemented by 5 November 2024 and maintained until 5 November 2026'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The regulator issued orders to the department, including blocking IP and domains for a range of generative AI websites, including ChatGPT, Meta AI, Gemini and Copilot.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"OVIC's investigation report, published in September 2024, found that DFFH contravened Information Privacy Principles 3.1 and 4.1 over a child protection worker's use of ChatGPT, that the contraventions were serious, and issued a compliance notice requiring DFFH to direct child protection staff not to use web-based generative AI text tools and to block them until 5 November 2026.","causal_attribution":"The regulator's own report and compliance notice establish its findings and orders."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Compliance notice: 'In or around September 2023, a Child Protection worker (CPW1) of the Organisation used'; 'ChatGPT, a web-based generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tool, when drafting a Protection'. Report: 'The report had been submitted to the Children’s Court for a case concerning a young child whose parents had been charged in relation to sexual offences'; 'CPW1 admitted that they had used ChatGPT in drafting the report, but denied inputting personal information as part of this'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"OVIC found that in or around September 2023 a DFFH child protection worker used ChatGPT when drafting a Protection Application Report that was submitted to the Children's Court in a case about a young child whose parents had been charged in relation to sexual offences; the worker admitted to DFFH using ChatGPT for the report.","causal_attribution":"OVIC's finding, based on indicators in the report and the worker's admission to DFFH."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Report: 'OVIC found, on the balance of probabilities, that CPW1 input personal information, including names'; 'By entering personal and sensitive information about the mother, father, carer, and child into ChatGPT, CPW1 also disclosed this information to OpenAI (the company which operates ChatGPT)'; DFFH response: 'it is not possible to definitively confirm that personal information has ever been entered into ChatGPT by the Child Protection Practitioner who no longer works in the department'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Ovic found that, on the balance of probabilities, the worker had entered in personal information.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"OVIC found on the balance of probabilities that the worker entered personal information, including names, about the child, mother, father and carer into ChatGPT, disclosing it to OpenAI; the worker denied entering personal information, and DFFH says this cannot be confirmed definitively.","causal_attribution":"A regulator's finding on the balance of probabilities, contested by the worker's denial; organisations cannot see what staff typed into ChatGPT."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Report: 'First, the PA Report referenced how the child’s father used a particular toy, a doll, for sexual purposes.'; 'The report later referenced the same toy as a notable strength, in that the parents had provided the child with “age-appropriate toys”'; 'ChatGPT failed to properly understand the relevant context, and generated inappropriate and inaccurate content as a result'; 'these deficiencies in the report did not ultimately change the decision-making of either Child Protection or the Court in relation to the child'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'But it also said the report did not change the decision-making of either the child protection agency or the court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"OVIC's report attributes inaccurate content in the report to ChatGPT: having described a doll the father had reportedly used for sexual purposes, the report later cited the same toy as a parental strength ('age-appropriate toys'), which downplayed the risk to the child; the deficiencies did not change the decisions of Child Protection or the court.","causal_attribution":"OVIC attributes the doll passage to ChatGPT from the content itself and the worker's admission of ChatGPT use."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Report: 'DFFH arranged with the Court for the PA Report to be withdrawn and a replacement one submitted. It also notified affected parties about the incident'; 'In the present case, the mother, father, and carer variously described feelings of anxiety and being overwhelmed when informed about their information being disclosed'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to OVIC's report, DFFH arranged with the court for the report to be withdrawn and replaced and notified the affected parties; the mother, father and carer described feelings of anxiety and being overwhelmed when told their information had been disclosed.","causal_attribution":"DFFH's account to OVIC; the family members' reactions are relayed by the regulator, not in their own words."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"DFFH response, 18 September 2024: 'I accept that there was an unauthorized use of ChatGPT by a Child Protection Practitioner'; 'when developing a Protection Application Report for court'; 'the Child Protection Practitioner who no longer works in the department'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In response, the department said it accepted the findings and would work to implement the orders. It said it no longer employed the worker.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"DFFH's Secretary accepted that a child protection practitioner had used ChatGPT without authorisation for a court report and that the department breached the two privacy principles, and the department said it no longer employs the worker.","causal_attribution":"DFFH's own letter, annexed to the report."}],"effects":[{"label":"personal information about a child, the mother, father and carer was entered into ChatGPT and disclosed to OpenAI, regulator finds","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"ChatGPT-generated content in a Children's Court report downplayed the risk to the child; the report was withdrawn and replaced","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the mother, father and carer described anxiety and being overwhelmed when told of the disclosure","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://ovic.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/DFFH-ChatGPT-investigation-report-20240924-Re-upload.pdf","kind":"official_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"OVIC investigation report under s8C(2)(e) of the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic), September 2024, with the compliance notice (Annexure A) and DFFH's response letter of 18 September 2024 (Annexure B); the PDF (re-uploaded November 2024) was read in full on 2026-10-22 from ovic.vic.gov.au (HTTP 200); the report page gives 'Last updated 24 September 2024'.","independence_group":"ovic-dffh-chatgpt-investigation"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/sep/26/victoria-child-protection-chat-gpt-ban-ovic-report-ntwnfb","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Guardian (Australia), 26 September 2024, read in full on 2026-10-22 (HTTP 200). Its account comes from OVIC's report, so it shares that group. Its statement that the worker may have used ChatGPT in 100 cases does not match the report, which attributes the 100 cases to the worker's broader work unit; that statement is not relied on.","independence_group":"ovic-dffh-chatgpt-investigation"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["privacy","public_services","justice"],"unknowns":["Exactly what text the worker entered into ChatGPT; neither DFFH nor OVIC could see the prompts, and the input of personal information rests on a balance-of-probabilities finding.","The exact date of the ChatGPT use (the compliance notice says 'in or around September 2023') and of the court hearing.","Whether OpenAI retained or used the information entered.","Which people were affected in the 100 other cases with indicators of ChatGPT use, and whether their information was entered.","How DFFH has complied with the compliance notice since its first monitoring reports."],"geography":{"basis":"OVIC is Victoria's information regulator, DFFH is a Victorian government department, and the report says the affected child protection case went before the Children's Court, a Victorian court. The family's case was handled by the department in Victoria.","court_countries":["AU"],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":["AU"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-10-06 privacy clarification: a regulator's investigation report finds that a child protection worker entered a family's personal information into ChatGPT, without authorisation, and that ChatGPT-generated text minimising the risk to a child went into a court report. Relations: received_personal_information and made_claim_about. The case adds a statutory child protection setting, a court report and a compliance notice banning generative AI tools.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-22"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"OVIC's report finds that ChatGPT received personal information about the child, mother, father and carer that the worker typed in, which disclosed it to OpenAI, and that ChatGPT generated report text inaccurately describing the parents' care of the child (the doll passage), which went into a report submitted to the Children's Court and downplayed the risk to the child. The finding rests on indicators in the report text, the worker's admission of ChatGPT use and colleagues' accounts; the input of personal information was found on the balance of probabilities and the worker denied it.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Victorian child protection worker put a family's information into ChatGPT to draft a court report that minimised risk to the child, regulator finds","summary":"Victoria's Information Commissioner (OVIC) found in a report published on 24 September 2024 that a child protection worker at the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH) used ChatGPT in or around September 2023 to draft a Protection Application Report submitted to the Children's Court about a young child. On the balance of probabilities, OVIC found the worker entered personal information, including names, about the child, mother, father and carer, disclosing it to OpenAI; the worker admitted using ChatGPT but denied entering personal information. OVIC found generated content in the report described a doll that the father had reportedly used for sexual purposes as a parental strength ('age-appropriate toys'), downplaying the risk to the child, although the court's and the department's decisions did not change. The report was withdrawn and replaced, and the mother, father and carer described anxiety when told of the disclosure. OVIC found serious breaches of two privacy principles and issued a compliance notice requiring DFFH to ban and block generative AI text tools for child protection staff until November 2026; DFFH accepted the breach findings.","incidentDate":"2023-09-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-09-24","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used through its website by a child protection worker of Victoria's Department of Families, Fairness and Housing to draft a court report, without departmental authorisation (per OVIC's investigation report)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"OVIC found that personal information about a child, the mother, father and carer was entered into ChatGPT and disclosed to OpenAI, and that ChatGPT-generated content in a court report downplayed the risk to the child; the mother, father and carer described anxiety when told, according to OVIC's report.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":4,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"OVIC's report finds that personal and sensitive information about the mother, father, carer and child in this case was entered into ChatGPT (four people), and records that the mother, father and carer described anxiety when informed. OVIC says personal information had likely been entered in other cases too; those people are not counted. The worker, the court and DFFH staff are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"AU-VIC","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://ovic.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/DFFH-ChatGPT-investigation-report-20240924-Re-upload.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner: Investigation into the use of ChatGPT by a Child Protection worker (report, 24 Sep 2024)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-22T03:03:14.588614+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-22T03:03:14.588614+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["chatgpt","child-protection","court-report","privacy-regulator","unauthorised-ai-use","personal-information","victoria"]}]}