{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-09T06:45:30.141Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"professional_harm","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":9,"coverage":{"cases":9,"countries":4,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":9,"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":"2025-uk-upper-tribunal-asylum-appeal-chatgpt-grounds-fake-cases-invented-quotes-sra-self-report","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"the grounds of appeal were completely infected by the use of AI. In addition to the citation of fake cases, and paragraphs from cases which are not contained in those judgments, the Grounds of Appeal also quote paragraphs from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal which do not appear in that decision.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was pure invention, which was not to be found anywhere in Judge Balroop’s decision, yet criticism of it formed the basis for one aspect of ground (3) in the grounds of appeal.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"In this case, Mr Badar identified at least 18 separate errors in the grounds of appeal and withdrew three of the four grounds.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appellant's then solicitors drafted grounds of appeal that her counsel accepted were completely infected by the use of AI, citing fake cases and paragraphs not contained in the cited judgments and quoting passages from the First-tier Tribunal decision that do not appear in it; the tribunal found one purported quotation to be pure invention.","causal_attribution":"Established by the tribunal's own findings and its record of counsel's concession in the published decision. The Gazette repeats the decision and adds no independent origin."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Both were produced by a junior member of staff, namely a paralegal, using ChatGPT, which itself raises significant concerns about client confidentiality and legal privilege.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This occurred because Sarker Solicitors did not check the accuracy of the grounds of appeal, did not consider the grant of permission and did not check the accuracy of the skeleton argument.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"They accepted that AI was used to generate the grounds of appeal filed in the FtT and the skeleton argument filed in the UT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The grounds of appeal and skeleton argument were drafted by an unnamed paralegal working for east London firm Sarker Solicitors.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The tribunal found that both the grounds of appeal and the skeleton argument were produced by a junior member of staff, a paralegal, using ChatGPT, and that the firm did not check their accuracy; the solicitors had accepted that AI was used to generate both documents.","causal_attribution":"The product identification and the failure to check are the tribunal's findings in the decision, recorded with the solicitors' acceptance that AI generated the documents. The Gazette's statement that the drafter was an unnamed paralegal relays the decision (same independence group)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"A hearing was listed before Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Hobbs on 17 September 2025 to consider whether Judge Balroop had erred in law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Judge Hobbs adjourned the hearing, with directions which included the following:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We note that issues (2) to (4), which occupied a great deal of time at the hearing before us, only arose because of Sarker Solicitors’ inappropriate use of AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant withdrew the original grounds (1), (2) and (4).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"However, ground (3) discloses no error of law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant’s appeal therefore fails.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The judge declined to set aside permission to appeal but dismissed the appeal in any case. The Home Office was invited to file and serve any wasted costs application on Sarker Solicitors within 28 days.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The error-of-law hearing listed for 17 September 2025 was adjourned, three of the five issues at the final hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of the solicitors' use of AI, the appellant withdrew three of her four original grounds, and her appeal failed after her remaining and amended grounds were found to disclose no error of law.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history and disposition are directly established by the decision. The decision attributes the adjournment and the wasted hearing time to the solicitors' misuse of AI, and states separately that the surviving ground failed on its merits, so the dismissal itself is not attributed to the AI output."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and so we will say nothing about the professional conduct issues involved.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The respondent shall file and serve on Sarker Solicitors any wasted costs application, or confirmation that costs are not being pursued, within 28 days of this decision being sent to the parties.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Two individuals involved in filing court documents using ChatGPT which were riddled with mistakes and invented quotes have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and directs the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm within 28 days; no costs decision has been taken.","causal_attribution":"The self-reports and the costs directions are stated in the decision itself. The Gazette repeats them from the decision (same independence group), so the claim is documented, not corroborated. Whether the two individuals are the paralegal and the supervising solicitor is not stated."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"It would be misleading to describe them as having been caused by AI, rather than by the solicitors’ misuse of AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI, rather than a mere mis-citation of particular cases.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The tribunal said it would be misleading to describe the irregularities as caused by AI rather than by the solicitors' misuse of AI, while describing the case as one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal's own qualification, preserved as contrary evidence on causation: the decision places responsibility with the solicitors, and the Home Office's characterisation (at best negligent, at worst reckless) is relayed in the decision as a submission."}],"effects":[{"label":"Appellant's protection appeal pursued on AI-generated grounds containing fake cases and invented quotations; hearing adjourned and three of four grounds withdrawn","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Two individuals self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; wasted costs application against the firm invited","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2025-002601","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ut-decision-ui-2025-002601"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/duo-self-report-to-sra-over-grounds-of-appeal-infected-with-ai/5128148.article","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ut-decision-ui-2025-002601"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The date on which the paralegal generated the grounds of appeal is not stated; it falls between the First-tier decision of 23 April 2025 and the hearing listed for 17 September 2025.","Whether the two individuals who self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority are the paralegal and the supervising solicitor is not stated, and the outcome of any SRA consideration is unknown.","Whether the Home Office pursued wasted costs, and any amount, was not decided in the published decision.","What prompts were given to ChatGPT, and whether client material was entered into it, is not described; the tribunal only notes that the use raises confidentiality and privilege concerns.","Whether the appellant's appeal would have succeeded on properly drafted grounds cannot be known; the tribunal found the surviving and amended grounds disclosed no error of law."],"geography":{"basis":"The decision is an Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision heard at Field House, London, in an appeal against a UK Home Office refusal; the solicitors are described by the Gazette as an east London firm. The appellant is a Namibian national whose appeal concerns her removal from the UK, so her country is recorded as GB on the basis of the proceedings in which she was harmed, and Namibia is not recorded because no harm occurred there.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"The published Upper Tribunal decision (tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk, UI-2025-002601) and the Law Society Gazette report of 8 October 2026 were read in full on 2026-10-09. The decision records what ChatGPT generated (fake cases, misattributed paragraphs, invented quotations from the First-tier judge) and ties that output to the adjourned hearing, the wasted hearing time, the withdrawn grounds, the regulator self-reports and the costs directions. The appellant is anonymised by tribunal order and is described only by nationality and appeal type; the firm is named because the operative costs directions are addressed to it; the paralegal is unnamed. The tribunal's statement that the solicitors' misuse, not AI, caused the irregularities is preserved.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Upper Tribunal's published decision finds that the grounds of appeal and the skeleton argument filed on the appellant's behalf were produced by a paralegal using ChatGPT, and describes what that output contained: citations of fake cases, paragraphs not found in the cited judgments, and purported quotations from the First-tier judge's decision that the tribunal calls pure invention. The decision connects that output to the harm: the September 2025 hearing was adjourned after the Home Office queried the citation errors, three of the five issues at the final hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of the solicitors' use of AI, the appellant withdrew three of four grounds, and the tribunal invited a wasted costs application and noted two self-reports to the regulator. The FtT judge granted permission on those grounds while noting the misquotations, and the Upper Tribunal's decisions not to set aside permission and to refuse the new grounds were taken in the express context of the misrepresentations. The tribunal itself states that the irregularities were caused by the solicitors' misuse of AI rather than by AI, and the decision records the solicitors' own acceptance that AI was used. The firm's acceptance and the tribunal's findings come from one record, so the status is supported rather than corroborated by an independent source.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["acted_on_behalf","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"UK Upper Tribunal: solicitors' ChatGPT-drafted grounds in an asylum appeal cited fake cases and invented quotes; two individuals self-report to the SRA","summary":"A published Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision issued on 21 September 2026 records that the grounds of appeal and skeleton argument in a Namibian national's protection appeal were produced by a paralegal at her then solicitors using ChatGPT. The tribunal recorded her counsel's acceptance that the grounds cited fake cases, quoted passages absent from those judgments and attributed to the First-tier judge sentences he never wrote, and itself called one purported quotation pure invention. The September 2025 error-of-law hearing was adjourned, the appellant later withdrew three of her four original grounds, her remaining and amended grounds were found to disclose no error of law, and the tribunal directed the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; the Law Society Gazette reported the decision on 8 October 2026.","incidentDate":"2025-09-17","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-21","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-06","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, used by a paralegal to generate grounds of appeal and a skeleton argument (as found in the Upper Tribunal decision)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The tribunal records that the appellant's error-of-law hearing in September 2025 was adjourned, that three of the five issues at the eventual hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of her solicitors' inappropriate use of AI, that she withdrew three of her four original grounds, and that her appeal fails. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and directs the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm; no costs decision has been taken.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the appellant, whose appeal proceeded on AI-generated grounds she did not draft (the decision describes her as the appellant throughout). The paralegal who used ChatGPT and the supervising solicitor face professional consequences of their own conduct (self-report to the SRA, possible wasted costs) and are not counted as harmed persons; the two self-reporting individuals are not named as the paralegal and the solicitor in the decision.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"chatbot","primarySourceUrl":"https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2025-002601","primarySourceLabel":"Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), UI-2025-002601, decision issued 21 September 2026, published 6 October 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:28:56.311373+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:28:56.311373+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":[]},{"id":"2025-new-zealand-ockham-book-awards-two-fiction-books-ruled-out-over-ai-covers","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Two books by distinguished authors have been ruled out of New Zealand's premier literary prize because their covers were generated with artificial intelligence.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"were ruled out of the competition the following month in light of new guidelines around AI use","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"due to the use of AI on both of their covers","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The New Zealand Book Awards Trust ruled two fiction books out of the 2026 Ockham New Zealand Book Awards fiction prize because AI was used in their cover designs.","causal_attribution":"The exclusion is the Trust's decision under its AI eligibility clause. The outlets quote the same Trust statement, so the decision and its stated reason rest on one chain (the Trust) as relayed by RNZ, the Guardian and the Spinoff."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"said a bookseller suspected AI use and alerted organisers, upon which Christchurch-based publisher","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"confirmed it.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the trust was alerted to the AI in the two covers by booksellers","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"did assume that the studio would be doing so","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"According to the Trust, a bookseller suspected AI use on the covers and alerted the organisers, and the publisher then confirmed AI use. The publisher told the Spinoff the publisher believed AI was applied to both covers after original concepts and assumed the studio would use it.","causal_attribution":"The Trust's account and the publisher's own account to the Spinoff. The extent of AI use in each cover (generated imagery or AI-assisted editing) is not established by the inspected sources."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"the design studio that created the two book covers","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"He believes this is the case with both","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"did assume that the studio would be doing so","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The covers were made by an outside design studio that the publisher had worked with before, and the publisher says the publisher believes the studio used AI after original concepts had been developed and assumed the studio would use it.","causal_attribution":"The publisher's account as relayed by the Spinoff. The Spinoff reported that the studio had not responded to its request for comment, and no first-hand studio statement about these two covers was inspected."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The trust’s AI clause was in the entry criteria in the “call for entries pack” available from the date submissions were open, on August 7.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"far too late for any publisher to have taken this clause into account in their design briefs","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"This year is the first time AI regulations have been applied to the awards.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the covers would have been created many months before the entry guidelines were issued","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Trust's AI eligibility clause was in the call-for-entries pack available from 7 August (the Spinoff gives no year). The publisher says the covers of eligible titles had been designed months before, so publishers could not have taken the clause into account.","causal_attribution":"The clause date is the Trust's account and the design-timing objection is the publisher's account. The Trust told the Spinoff that publishers had ample time to read the conditions. The dispute over fairness is unresolved in the sources."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"she had no idea AI had been used to create her cover","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"didn’t have much to do with the cover process beyond the original brief","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"and neither did","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"One author says the author had no idea AI had been used in the cover, had little to do with the cover beyond the original brief, and had no contact with the design studio. The Spinoff reports the other author also had no contact with the studio.","causal_attribution":"First-person accounts to two outlets. The Spinoff reports the publisher did not tell the authors that AI might be used in the final cover designs."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t sad about it","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"which she “most certainly did not”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"she’s worried that booksellers might refuse to stock her book now that the AI has been outed","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"is agnostic about the elimination of her book","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"One author says the author is sad about the decision, worried that readers will assume AI was used to write the book, and worried that booksellers might refuse to stock it. The Spinoff reports the other author is agnostic about the elimination and concerned that the designer's work is being disrespected.","causal_attribution":"Personal statements about anticipated reputational and commercial effects. No bookseller action or sales change is reported in the inspected sources."}],"effects":[{"label":"Two books removed from contention for a national fiction prize over AI in the cover designs","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.rnz.co.nz/life/books/top-writers-ruled-out-of-nz-book-awards-due-to-ai-covers","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"rnz-trust-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/18/authors-dumped-from-new-zealands-top-book-prize-after-ai-used-in-cover-designs","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"guardian-trust-publisher-interviews"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/20-11-2025/how-two-ai-book-covers-forced-the-publishing-industry-to-reckon-with-its-future","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"spinoff-interviews"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["The extent and method of AI use in each cover is unknown. Only the publisher's belief that AI was applied to original concepts was inspected.","The exact date of the Trust's decision is not stated. The Guardian says the books were submitted in October and ruled out the following month, the Spinoff says the publisher submitted its entries in September, and the incident date is set to the month of the decision.","The New York Times and Euronews articles could not be read (HTTP 403 and 406) and are not cited. The Independent relay was read and is not cited. No source gives the day of the decision.","Whether booksellers changed stocking of the books or sales changed is not reported.","The design studio's statements were relayed by the publisher (Spinoff) and are general. The studio did not respond to the Spinoff, and no first-hand statement about these two covers was inspected."],"geography":{"basis":"The awards are described as New Zealand's premier literary prize run by the New Zealand Book Awards Trust, the Guardian describes the two authors as New Zealand authors, and RNZ describes the publisher as Christchurch-based.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["NZ"],"affected_person_countries":["NZ"]},"publication":{"basis":"RNZ, the Guardian and the Spinoff were read in full. The disqualification and its reason are the Trust's account repeated by the outlets. The authors and the publisher are public figures named in the reporting. They are not named anywhere in the record, including source locators. No claim about the designers or the publisher goes beyond their reported statements.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Trust says the publisher confirmed AI use in the covers. The publisher told the Spinoff the publisher believes AI was applied to both covers after original concepts and assumed the studio would use it. No design file, studio statement about these covers or detection result was inspected, and the extent of AI use is unknown.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"New Zealand: two fiction books ruled out of the 2026 Ockham book awards after the awards trust found AI was used in their cover designs","summary":"By 18 November 2025 (the date of the first reports) the New Zealand Book Awards Trust had removed two books from contention for the NZ$65,000 fiction prize of the 2026 Ockham New Zealand Book Awards. The Trust said a bookseller suspected AI use in the covers and the publisher confirmed it. The Trust's new AI clause covers illustrations, and the publisher says the covers were designed months before the clause was issued. One author says the author had no idea AI had been used in the cover, the Spinoff reports the publisher did not tell either author that AI might be used, and the authors describe having little involvement in the covers. One author worries readers will assume AI wrote the book and that booksellers may not stock it.","incidentDate":"2025-11-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-11-18","aiSystem":"Generative AI image tools used by a design studio for the covers (specific product not identified in the inspected sources)","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"RNZ, the Guardian and the Spinoff report the Trust removed the two authors' books from contention for the 2026 Ockham fiction prize, and one author told the Spinoff of worry about reputation and bookseller stocking.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Two authors whose books were removed from prize contention. Only one of the two authors describes personal harm (sadness, reputation and stocking worries) and the other is reported as agnostic about the elimination. Both are counted because both books were removed from contention. The publisher and the designers are reported as upset and are not counted as harmed by the AI use.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.rnz.co.nz/life/books/top-writers-ruled-out-of-nz-book-awards-due-to-ai-covers","primarySourceLabel":"RNZ (18 Nov 2025)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:29:11.165316+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:11.809634+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-nova-scotia-google-ai-overview-musician-sex-offender-summary-concert-cancelled","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"They had read online, Mr. MacIsaac was told, that he had convictions related to internet luring and sexual assault.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"That information is not true","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the summary falsely asserted he had been convicted of a series of offences including sexual assault","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"returned a result that said he had been “convicted of sexual assault.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"MacIsaac says a Google AI-generated search summary described him as having convictions for sexual offences including internet luring and sexual assault, and that this was untrue.","causal_attribution":"MacIsaac's account relayed by two outlets. The Globe adds that the only public record of a run-in with the law it found is a cannabis discharge. The summary was not inspected. The Globe reporter saw a Google result stating 'convicted of sexual assault' on a query that included the other man's town; that result was seen after the first amendments and may differ from what the First Nation read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"its leadership had changed their mind","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"this situation was the result of mistaken identity caused by an AI error","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"had cancelled one of his concerts planned for Dec. 19","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"the cancellation was based on incorrect information","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"We deeply regret the harm this error caused to your reputation, your livelihood, and your sense of personal safety","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Sipekne'katik First Nation cancelled MacIsaac's concert planned for 19 December 2025 after learning of the summary, then apologised in writing and said the cancellation was based on incorrect information.","causal_attribution":"The apology letter (seen by the Globe) and an online post (cited by Global News) are the First Nation's own statements. The First Nation did not respond to the Globe's requests for comment."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"blending MacIsaac’s biography with that of another man","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the inaccurate claims were taken from online articles regarding a man in Atlantic Canada with the same last name","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The false information was the result of the AI summary blending MacIsaac's biography with that of another man in Atlantic Canada with the same last name.","causal_attribution":"The Globe states the blending in its own voice. Global News attributes the origin to MacIsaac."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The fiddler says the ordeal left him worried for his safety","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"He’s also concerned about work he may have lost without realizing it","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I feared for my own safety going on stage because of what I was labelled as.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"MacIsaac says the episode left him worried for his safety and concerned that other venues may have declined to book him without telling him.","causal_attribution":"MacIsaac's own account. Lost work beyond the one concert is his speculation."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Google has amended search results for the musician","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"we use those examples to improve our systems, and may take action under our policies","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Google amended the search results for MacIsaac. A Google spokesperson said AI Overviews change frequently and that Google uses examples of misinterpreted content to improve its systems.","causal_attribution":"Globe reporting and a Google statement. The exact edits were not inspected."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In a statement of claim filed in February with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"None of the claims in the document has been tested in court.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"claiming the online giant defamed him by falsely identifying him as a sex offender in an AI-generated summary","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Google is also liable for injuries and losses arising from the AI overview's defective design","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"MacIsaac is seeking $1.5 million in damages from Google LLC.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In February 2026 MacIsaac filed a statement of claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice alleging defamation and defective design and seeking damages of 1.5 million from Google LLC (US dollars in the Globe and Mail copy of the Canadian Press story, no currency stated in the CBC copy). Its claims have not been tested in court.","causal_attribution":"News paraphrase of the statement of claim (Canadian Press, relayed by CBC, the Globe and Billboard Canada). The claim itself was not inspected. The Globe copy of the wire story gives US dollars and the CBC copy gives no currency."}],"effects":[{"label":"Concert cancelled and reputational harm after a false AI-generated summary","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Reported fear for personal safety and possible unnoticed lost work","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.theglobeandmail.com/culture/article-ashley-macisaac-show-cancelled-google-ai-misinformation-music-fiddler/","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"globe-and-mail-dec-2025"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://globalnews.ca/news/11589560/ashley-macissac-ai-content-accusation/amp","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"canadian-press-2025-12"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cape-breton-fiddler-ashley-macisaac-lawsuit-against-google-9.7187490","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"canadian-press-2026-05-lawsuit"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.theglobeandmail.com/culture/music/article-ashley-macisaac-lawsuit-google-ai-error-sex-offender/","kind":"national_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"canadian-press-2026-05-lawsuit"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://ca.billboard.com/business/legal/ashley-macisaac-google-lawsuit","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"canadian-press-2026-05-lawsuit"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use","others_use"],"contexts":["work","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The AI Overview text the First Nation read was not preserved in the inspected sources (the Globe reporter saw a later result with a similar statement), and its content changed over time.","Exact date of the cancellation (the concert was planned for 19 December 2025).","Whether any other booking was lost (MacIsaac speculates, including about a concert in Mexico earlier in 2025).","Currency of the claimed damages (US dollars in one copy of the wire story, unstated in another).","The statement of claim was not read. Google's defence and the lawsuit outcome are unknown."],"geography":{"basis":"The concert was planned with the Sipekne'katik First Nation, described as north of Halifax (Nova Scotia is named by Billboard Canada). The statement of claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The country of residence of the affected person is not stated, so it is left unknown.","court_countries":["CA"],"event_countries":["CA"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Named public figure who is the subject. Two December 2025 outlets and May 2026 lawsuit coverage report a concrete cancelled concert and reputational harm traced to a Google AI-generated summary. The First Nation's written apology and Google's response are reported. Lawsuit claims remain allegations.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Globe and Mail states the false description was the result of Google's AI-generated search summary blending MacIsaac's biography with that of another man. Google's spokesperson statement refers to AI Overviews generally and does not address this summary. The summary itself was not inspected and its content changed over time.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Google AI Overview reportedly described fiddler Ashley MacIsaac as a convicted sex offender, and a concert was cancelled","summary":"In December 2025 Cape Breton fiddler Ashley MacIsaac said a First Nation north of Halifax cancelled his concert planned for 19 December after reading a Google AI-generated search summary that said he had convictions for sexual offences. He says the statements were false and came from online articles about another man in Atlantic Canada with the same last name. The First Nation apologised in writing and Google amended the search results. MacIsaac says he feared for his safety and worries about other lost work. In a statement of claim filed in February 2026 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice he seeks damages of 1.5 million from Google (US dollars in the Globe and Mail copy of the Canadian Press story, no currency stated in the CBC copy). None of its claims has been tested in court, and the claim says Google did not admit responsibility.","incidentDate":"2025-12-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-12-23","aiSystem":"Google Search AI Overviews","aiProduct":"Google AI Overviews","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm","professional_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"MacIsaac reports a cancelled concert, damage to his reputation and livelihood, fear for his safety and possible unnoticed lost bookings after the AI summary said he had convictions for sexual offences (his account, plus the First Nation's apology letter).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the musician, is reported harmed. The other man with the same last name is reported as the source of the mixed-up information and no harm to him is reported. The First Nation is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theglobeandmail.com/culture/article-ashley-macisaac-show-cancelled-google-ai-misinformation-music-fiddler/","primarySourceLabel":"The Globe and Mail, 23 December 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:29:04.774728+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:12.421073+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-us-yale-law-scholar-suspended-after-ai-empowered-news-site-article","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Last week, though, she was abruptly barred from Yale’s campus in New Haven, Conn., and placed on administrative leave.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Yale officials cited the reason as allegations that she was tied to entities subject to U.S. sanctions.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"on administrative leave last week and barred her from campus.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Yale placed the scholar on administrative leave and barred the scholar from campus in early March 2025, after allegations that the scholar was tied to entities subject to US sanctions.","causal_attribution":"The New York Times is the origin. Inside Higher Ed relays it. Yale's own statement to The National is a separate party statement (claim c8). The leave letter and the exact date were not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The decision came three days after a news site, powered at least in part by artificial intelligence, published a story about","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The news site, Jewish Onliner, said that the scholar was connected to Samidoun","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"prompted by allegations on a lesser-known, largely AI-powered news site called Jewish Onliner","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Yale's decision came three days after a news site described as powered at least in part by artificial intelligence published a story on the scholar's connections to Samidoun. Inside Higher Ed and Middle East Eye identify the site as Jewish Onliner.","causal_attribution":"The New York Times states the sequence and does not name the site in the inspected extract. The article date and Yale's internal reasoning are not documented in the inspected sources."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"“The initial email from the general counsel had specifically linked to the Jewish Onliner article and said that was the trigger of the investigation, so there's no dispute about that,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"I received the email notifying us from Yale's general counsel that she had been put on administrative leave and on the grounds that we had failed to cooperate with their investigation, which was ridiculous,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The scholar's lawyer says Yale's general counsel wrote that the Jewish Onliner article was the trigger of the investigation, and that Yale later placed the scholar on leave on the ground that, in the lawyer's words, 'we' (the scholar and the lawyer) had failed to cooperate with its investigation.","causal_attribution":"Single account by the scholar's lawyer as relayed by Middle East Eye. The Yale email was not inspected."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Jewish Onliner describes itself as “your online hub for insights, investigations, data and exposes about issues impacting the Jewish community. Empowered by AI capabilities\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"While AI plays a significant role in enhancing and accelerating our work and content, we want to emphasise that it’s only a tool.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"each person handles every part of a project: conducting OSINT [open source intelligence] research, analyzing the findings, and writing the piece. AI tools also play a significant role in enhancing and accelerating the work","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"articles are ultimately done by the site's human fact-checking team.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"The organization told the Times that humans, not AI, make the final edits on stories.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The site describes itself as empowered by AI. A person affiliated with the site says AI tools play a significant role and that each team member does the research, analysis and writing. The site's email to The National and its statement to the Times, as relayed by Inside Higher Ed, say humans fact-check content and make the final edits.","causal_attribution":"These are the site operators' own statements (emails to The National and to JTA, and a statement to the New York Times). How AI was used in the article about the scholar is not documented, and the JTA statement describes human research and writing."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"“I am not a member of any organization that would constitute a violation of U.S. law.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"told the Times that she’s not part “of any organization that would constitute a violation of U.S. law.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The scholar told the New York Times of not being a member of any organization that would constitute a violation of US law.","causal_attribution":"The scholar's own statement as quoted by Gizmodo and as paraphrased by Inside Higher Ed, which attributes it to a Times interview. The Times interview text beyond the extract was not inspected."},{"id":"c6","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"said she is not a member of Samidoun","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"has yet to explicitly deny her membership in Samidoun.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The scholar's lawyer says the scholar is not a member of Samidoun, and the site says the scholar has yet to explicitly deny membership.","causal_attribution":"Both positions are party statements. The inspected sources do not verify membership either way, and the site's underlying evidence (appearances on panels at Samidoun-sponsored events per the New York Times) was not inspected."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"had been enduring online harassment ever since the Jewish Onliner published its article.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"and Yale were reportedly the subject of intense harassment after Jewish Onliner published the article","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The scholar was reportedly subjected to online harassment after the article was published.","causal_attribution":"Lawyer's account relayed by Middle East Eye and an unsourced 'reportedly' statement in Gizmodo. The harassment itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In response to allegations about potential unlawful conduct, the appropriate process is to place an employee on a temporary administrative leave while a review is conducted to understand the facts of the matter.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"short-term position as an associate research scholar with the LPE Project expires next month.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"A Yale Law School representative said placing an employee on temporary administrative leave while a review is conducted is the appropriate process after allegations of potential unlawful conduct, and that the scholar's short-term position was due to expire the month after the statement.","causal_attribution":"Yale Law School's own statement as quoted by The National. The statement date is not given, so the expiry month is not established, and the effect of the leave on the scholar's employment is not reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"Administrative leave and campus ban after an AI-empowered news site article linked the scholar to a sanctioned group","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/us/yale-suspends-scholar-terrorism.html","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-report"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2025/03/13/ai-empowered-site-accuses-yale-scholar-terrorism-connection","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-report"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://gizmodo.com/yale-suspends-palestine-activist-after-ai-article-linked-her-to-terrorism-2000575148","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-report"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/muslim-scholar-international-law-barred-yale-university-after-ai-powered-terrorism-accusation","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"scholar-lawyer-account"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.thenationalnews.com/future/technology/2025/03/26/ai-powered-jewish-onliner-helyeh-doutaghi/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"the-national-statements"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/all-news/article-848011","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"site-own-statements"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","education","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The New York Times article was read only as a preview extract (a Wayback capture of about 3,000 characters ending at the paywall); passages beyond it were not seen.","The date the Jewish Onliner article was published and the exact date of Yale's leave decision are not stated in the inspected sources, so the incident date is given at month precision.","Which statements in the article, if any, were generated or drafted by AI, and whether any AI error contributed, is unknown.","The Jewish Onliner article itself was not inspected.","The National quotes a Yale Law School statement that the scholar's short-term position expires 'next month'. The statement date is not given, and the outcome of the investigation and any effect on the scholar's employment are not reported.","A person affiliated with the site says each team member does the research, analysis and writing, so the extent of AI use in the article about the scholar is unknown.","Whether the scholar was later reinstated, or how Yale's investigation concluded, is not covered by the inspected sources."],"geography":{"basis":"The New York Times places the barred campus in New Haven, Conn. The scholar's residence or nationality, the site operators' location and any court are not used.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Six public news reports were read. The New York Times original is cited from a preview extract only. Claims are attributed and left at reported or disputed status because the leave letter, the article and Yale's statements were not inspected beyond press quotations. The scholar is not named in any public field.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The New York Times describes the site as 'powered at least in part by artificial intelligence', the site describes itself as empowered by AI capabilities, and a person affiliated with the site says AI tools play a significant role in its work and humans fact-check. A person affiliated with the site also says each team member does the research, analysis and writing, and the inspected sources do not show that AI produced the article about the scholar.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Yale Law School scholar placed on leave and barred from campus after article on an AI-empowered news site linked the scholar to a sanctioned group","summary":"In March 2025 Yale placed a Yale Law School scholar, who was deputy director of a Yale Law School project, on administrative leave and barred the scholar from campus. The New York Times reports the decision came three days after a news site described as powered at least in part by artificial intelligence published a story on the scholar's connections to Samidoun, a group on a US sanctions list. Inside Higher Ed and Middle East Eye identify the site as Jewish Onliner. The scholar's lawyer says Yale's general counsel named the article as the trigger of the investigation. The scholar told the Times of not being a member of any organization that would violate US law, and the lawyer says the scholar is not a member of Samidoun. A Yale Law School representative told The National that placing an employee on temporary administrative leave while a review is conducted is the appropriate process and that the scholar's short-term position was due to expire the following month. The site says humans fact-check and that AI tools play a significant role in its work. The inspected sources do not show that AI produced the article.","incidentDate":"2025-03-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-03-12","aiSystem":"Jewish Onliner (Substack news site describing itself as empowered by AI capabilities; models and tools not identified in the inspected sources)","aiProduct":"Jewish Onliner (suspected)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The New York Times reports the scholar was barred from Yale's campus and placed on administrative leave, and the scholar's lawyer told Middle East Eye the article was named as the trigger of Yale's investigation, that the scholar suffered online harassment and that Yale should restore the scholar's reputation.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One scholar reported placed on leave and barred from campus. Yale, the site's other subjects and the harassers are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/us/yale-suspends-scholar-terrorism.html","primarySourceLabel":"The New York Times (12 Mar 2025), preview extract","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:55.093356+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.811349+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-us-neh-humanities-grant-mass-termination-chatgpt-dei-screening","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"The Mass Termination is DECLARED unlawful,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"was unlawful because it was undertaken in violation of the First Amendment","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the resulting terminations were ultra vires","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the termination, in early April 2025, of more than 1,400 grants,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing, implementing, or giving any effect to the Mass Termination.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 7 May 2026 the court declared the April 2025 mass termination of NEH grants (more than 1,400 grants, over $100 million) unlawful, unconstitutional and ultra vires, and permanently enjoined its enforcement.","causal_attribution":"The declaration rests on the First Amendment, equal protection and lack of statutory authority. It does not rest on a finding that ChatGPT was inaccurate."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Does the following relate at all to DEI? Respond factually in less than 120 characters. Begin with ‘Yes.’ or ‘No.’ followed by a brief explanation.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"did not provide ChatGPT with a definition of “DEI”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"it enlisted the help of ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"two employees of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) used ChatGPT to determine whether previously approved National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants should be canceled","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"A DOGE staff member used ChatGPT with a standardized prompt asking whether each grant description related at all to DEI, without defining DEI for the model.","causal_attribution":"The opinion recites deposition testimony and the spreadsheet. The prompt text is a quotation of the court record."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"thereby combining DOGE’s AI-generated classifications with NEH staff recommendations.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"did not know ChatGPT had been used","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The ChatGPT outputs were combined with NEH staff ratings into the lists used to select grants for termination, and the NEH acting chair testified to not knowing ChatGPT had been used.","causal_attribution":"The court ties the ChatGPT-generated rationales to the lists presented to the NEH chair. The acting chair's account is deposition testimony as recited by the court."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"were terminated on that basis and that basis alone.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Of the 1,163 grant proposals DOGE analyzed via ChatGPT for DEI-related content, 1,057 were flagged, and just 42 were kept","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The opinion states that 1,057 grants were identified as DEI-related through the DOGE review process and terminated on that basis alone.","causal_attribution":"The opinion attributes the identification to a process that combined keyword searches and ChatGPT rationales. The opinion says ChatGPT rationales were generated in a second-stage review of grants NEH staff had labelled \"N/A\" and were merged with NEH ratings. It does not apportion the 1,057 between NEH ratings and ChatGPT. Fortune attributes all 1,057 flags to ChatGPT from a spreadsheet exhibit."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Yes. This description highlights how the plastics industry influenced municipal government officials to favor plastics","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Nevertheless, ChatGPT classified the project as “DEI,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The utter lack of reasoning behind so many of its “rationales”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court describes ChatGPT classifying projects as DEI on the basis of short descriptions, including a project on the plastics industry and municipal building codes, with rationales the court found lacking.","causal_attribution":"The court characterises the outputs. Whether each terminated grant was flagged by ChatGPT is not stated for the individual plaintiffs."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The individual plaintiffs are scholars and writers who received NEH grants for specific research and writing projects and whose awards were terminated before the completion of their funded work.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"allege concrete professional, financial, and scholarly harms","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"That funding was terminated effective April 2, 2025, resulting in the loss of the fellowship itself.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"individual grantees whose awards were terminated suffered a concrete economic injury sufficient to confer Article III standing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Seven individual grantees whose NEH awards were terminated before completion allege professional, financial and scholarly harm, including lost funding, and in one case loss of a fellowship that depended on NEH funding.","causal_attribution":"The harms are the plaintiffs' allegations as summarised by the court, and the standing holding is recited from the court's earlier preliminary injunction opinion. The link between ChatGPT and the termination of these seven specific awards is not stated in the inspected passages."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"DOGE officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select, or direct the termination of NEH grants","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court declared that DOGE officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select or direct the termination of NEH grants.","causal_attribution":"A legal declaration in the judgment."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Yes. Improving HVAC systems enhances preservation conditions for collections, aligning with the goal of providing greater access to diverse audiences. #DEI,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"We were able to recoup about 70% of the original award through the grant termination clause,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A North Carolina history museum's $349,000 HVAC grant was flagged by ChatGPT as DEI and terminated after the project had begun, and the museum director says it recouped about 70% of the award through the termination clause.","causal_attribution":"Organisation-level example from one outlet and one interview. It is not counted as harm to a person."}],"effects":[{"label":"Individual grantees lost or had interrupted NEH funding when their awards were terminated in a mass termination that relied on a ChatGPT DEI screen","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/NEH.sj_.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"sdny-opinion-2026-05"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/research/2026/03/11/how-doge-gutted-neh-22-days","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://fortune.com/2026/03/19/doge-cancelled-350000-hvac-grant-dei-lawsuit-elon-musk/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.artforum.com/news/doge-allegedly-used-chatgpt-to-cancel-humanities-grants-1234745040/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"neh-litigation-record-news"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","education","public_services"],"unknowns":["Whether ChatGPT reviewed or flagged the specific grants of the seven individual plaintiffs is not stated in the passages inspected.","The dates on which ChatGPT was used are not stated beyond the second stage of review beginning on 12 March 2025 and terminations sent 1 to 3 April 2025. The incident dates are the bounded series between those points.","The number of individual people (as opposed to organizations) whose awards were terminated is not stated.","The opinion separates grants marked \"DEI\" from grants terminated without a DEI mark (its Biden-Era Subclass). It does not say which group any of the seven individual plaintiffs' grants belonged to.","Whether funding has been restored is unknown. The judgment states it does not require immediate payment.","Appeal status of the May 2026 judgment is unknown.","The New York Times article listed in the AIID entry returned HTTP 403 and was not read. The opinion is 143 pages and was read through its factual sections, the standing recital and the judgment, not every legal section."],"geography":{"basis":"The opinion describes terminations by the US federal agency NEH and by DOGE staff of grants to scholars, writers and institutions, and describes the individual plaintiffs as holding positions at US universities. The court is a US federal district court (S.D.N.Y.).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"A federal court opinion (7 May 2026), Inside Higher Ed and Fortune were read. Claims about the court record are documented by the opinion. Individual grantee harms are the plaintiffs' allegations as summarised by the court. Individual plaintiffs and DOGE staff are not named in public fields.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The federal court opinion finds that a DOGE staff member submitted grant descriptions to ChatGPT with a DEI yes/no prompt and that the outputs were folded into the lists used to select grants for termination. The opinion does not state whether each of the seven individual plaintiffs' grants was reviewed or flagged by ChatGPT.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"US: National Endowment for the Humanities grants terminated after DOGE staff used ChatGPT to flag projects as DEI-related","summary":"In March and early April 2025 (the opinion gives no date for the ChatGPT step), a DOGE staff member working with the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) submitted short grant descriptions to ChatGPT with a prompt asking whether each project related at all to DEI, and the answers were combined with NEH staff ratings into lists of grants to terminate. More than 1,400 NEH grants (over $100 million) were terminated in notices sent 1 to 3 April 2025. A federal district court found the mass termination unlawful in May 2026 and described the ChatGPT step in its findings. Seven individual grantees who sued report lost or interrupted funding for their research and writing projects. The opinion does not state whether ChatGPT reviewed those seven grants.","incidentDate":"2025-03-12","incidentEndDate":"2025-04-03","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-08","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used through a standardized DEI yes/no prompt","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court opinion describes seven individual grantee plaintiffs whose NEH awards were terminated before completion, and reports their allegations of lost funding, interrupted research and leave from employment taken in reliance on the awards. Individual counts beyond these seven are not established in the inspected sources.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"unclear","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":7,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"The court opinion names seven individual grantee plaintiffs whose awards were terminated. It states the terminations reached more than 1,400 grants awarded to scholars, writers, research institutions and other humanities organizations, and does not give a count of individual people. The opinion does not state whether these seven grants were flagged by ChatGPT. Organizations, members of plaintiff associations and the wider class are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/NEH.sj_.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"S.D.N.Y. opinion and order granting summary judgment, 7 May 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:29.039734+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.404135+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-new-york-union-square-facial-recognition-false-arrest-two-days-jail","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"After his mug shot was generated as a possible match to the offender in an indecent exposure case, he was arrested and spent two days in jail in April before the charges against him were dropped in July.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"was falsely arrested and jailed for two days despite not matching the physical description given by the victim of a sex crime.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Prosecutors dismissed the case last month after ... public defenders, the Legal Aid Society, were able to prove he was falsely identified.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"An indecent exposure suspect search produced a possible facial recognition match to the affected man, who was arrested in April 2025, jailed for two days and charged. Prosecutors dismissed the case in July 2025.","causal_attribution":"The reporting attributes the arrest to the facial recognition possible match followed by police decisions (a photo lineup and the arrest). The inspected sources do not establish what other evidence the police relied on."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"The man they were looking for, he was eight inches shorter than me and 70 pounds lighter.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Location data from his cell phone showed that ... was miles away from the crime, the New York Times first reported.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The man reports that the suspect was eight inches shorter and 70 pounds lighter than him, and reports say location data from his phone placed him miles from the crime.","causal_attribution":"Physical and location discrepancies are the man's account and a relayed New York Times report. The New York Times article was not readable and the phone data was not inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"for NYPD investigators to make the decision to place him in a photo lineup, which was then shown to the victim, who misidentified him.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A victim was shown a photo lineup that included the man and misidentified him.","causal_attribution":"Hell Gate summarises the New York Times account. Its chain traces to the same original reporting as the New York Times article that was not readable here."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"I was in the process of becoming a correctional officer at Rikers Island,\" he told Eyewitness News.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"But after his arrest, he says \"they kind of froze the hiring process.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The man says he was in the process of becoming a correctional officer and that after his arrest they \"kind of froze the hiring process.\"","causal_attribution":"Single first-person account relayed by one outlet. No employer statement was inspected and the current hiring status is unknown."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"even if there is a possible match, the NYPD cannot and will never make an arrest solely using facial recognition technology.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The NYPD stated that even with a possible facial recognition match it cannot and will never make an arrest solely using facial recognition technology.","causal_attribution":"Police statement relayed by ABC7. It bears on how the match was used and does not address this arrest specifically."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On Monday, the Legal Aid Society sent a letter to the City's Department of Investigation urging the agency to open a probe into the NYPD's use of facial recognition technology","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"who was wrongfully arrested  based on a false facial recognition match","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The Legal Aid Society wrote to the city Department of Investigation asking it to investigate NYPD facial recognition use after this and other false arrests.","causal_attribution":"Advocacy response. Legal Aid statements are the organisation's allegations."}],"effects":[{"label":"Arrest and two days in jail after a facial recognition possible match, case later dismissed","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://abc7ny.com/post/man-falsely-jailed-nypds-facial-recognition-surveillance-tech-failed/17664671/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"abc7-interview"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://hellgatenyc.com/legal-aid-investigation-nypd-facial-recognition/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-original-account"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://legalaidnyc.org/news/demands-ban-nypd-facial-recognition-technology/","kind":"advocacy_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"legal-aid"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/nyregion/nypd-facial-recognition-dismissed-case.html","kind":"news","access":"unavailable","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-original-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The New York Times article could not be read, so details attributed to it are relayed second-hand.","The facial recognition product, the source of the comparison photo and the match score are unknown.","The Hell Gate article is behind a subscriber paywall after its opening paragraphs; only the visible text was inspected.","The date of the facial recognition search and match (between the 10 February offense and the April arrest) is not stated in the inspected sources; the incident date is the reported arrest month.","The exact arrest day, the court and the dismissal date are not stated in the inspected sources.","Whether the correctional officer hiring process resumed is unknown.","Which evidence besides the possible match supported the arrest and lineup is unknown."],"geography":{"basis":"ABC7 places the offense in Manhattan's Union Square and the arrest by the NYPD. The man's residence and the court are not stated in the inspected sources.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"ABC7 New York and a Legal Aid Society release were read in full. Hell Gate was read only as far as its subscriber paywall allows. The New York Times original was blocked (HTTP 403 and reader relays) and is cited unread. Claims are attributed and left at reported status. The affected person is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Hell Gate and ABC7 report the arrest followed a facial recognition possible match. The system, the search image and the match output were not produced, and the New York Times original was not readable.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"New York: man misidentified through facial recognition in an indecent exposure case arrested and jailed two days","summary":"Reporting from August 2025 says an NYPD facial recognition search of images from a February 2025 indecent exposure in Manhattan's Union Square produced a possible match to a man who did not fit the described suspect. The man was placed in a photo lineup, arrested in April 2025 and jailed for two days. Prosecutors dismissed the case in July 2025 after his public defenders showed he was misidentified. The man says the process of becoming a correctional officer 'kind of' froze after the arrest. The NYPD says it never arrests solely on a facial recognition match.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-08-26","aiSystem":"NYPD facial recognition system (product and vendor not identified in the inspected sources)","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"ABC7 and Hell Gate report the man was arrested and jailed for two days before prosecutors dismissed the case, and the man says a correctional officer hiring process 'kind of' froze after the arrest.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One man reported arrested and jailed. The offense victim and other people are not counted as harmed by the AI.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://abc7ny.com/post/man-falsely-jailed-nypds-facial-recognition-surveillance-tech-failed/17664671/","primarySourceLabel":"ABC7 New York (27 Aug 2025)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T12:42:09.552414+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:11.583854+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-stephens-county-oklahoma-judge-chatgpt-fake-citations-paternity-order","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Wheeler denied a request from one of the parents' attorneys to have the other parent undergo a psychological test—and in his order denying the request, he pointed to multiple previous Oklahoma cases he said backed him up.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The 2025 order in a child paternity case'; 'He came under scrutiny after he reprimanded attorney [the attorney] last November in an order in the paternity case for asking for a psychological evaluation of the child’s father.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The issue came to light after a request for a mental evaluation was denied and a subsequent court order was filed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In November 2025, in a child paternity and custody case, Judge Wheeler issued an order denying a request by one parent's attorney for a psychological evaluation of the other parent, citing Oklahoma cases he said supported the decision.","causal_attribution":"Court history as reported by The Oklahoman and KFOR and described by the mother; the order itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge told the OSBI he only used ChatGPT for research and created the order himself, DA Jason Hicks wrote. The judge, however, also “indicated that at least two of the case citations included in his order and produced by ChatGPT do not exist.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Stephens County District Attorney Jason Hicks says Wheeler admitted to OSBI agents he cited \"at least two\" cases ChatGPT fed him that \"do not exist.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Hicks wrote that Wheeler acknowledged using case citations generated by ChatGPT and that at least two citations included in the order did not exist.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler used OpenAI's ChatGPT for research while drafting the order, which cited two cases that do not exist, according to state records.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"According to the district attorney's 17 August 2026 letter, the judge told the OSBI that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and indicated that at least two case citations in the order, produced by ChatGPT, do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The judge's own statement to investigators as relayed in the district attorney's letter; all four reports rely on that letter, which was not read. The judge's attorney declined to comment."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge issued the reprimand “for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics” and cautioned that future similar filings may be subject to further sanctions.'; '[The attorney] challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February. He told justices that Wheeler based his order on two cases, Cummings v. Cimarron Elevator Co. and Hawkins v. Linhart, that do not exist.'; '[The attorney] dismissed his challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. Wheeler is no longer involved in the paternity case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'She said her attorney at the time challenged the ruling and began reviewing the legal authorities cited in the order.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The order reprimanded the attorney who had asked for a psychological evaluation of the child's father 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics' and warned of further sanctions; that attorney challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, saying it relied on two nonexistent cases, and dismissed the challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. The mother told News 9 that her attorney at the time challenged the ruling.","causal_attribution":"The Oklahoman's account of the court filings and the mother's account to News 9; the Supreme Court filings were not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'[The mother] said learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child.'; '“Then it became very concerning to me that somebody would do something like that over a child custody case,” she said.'; '“He then turned around and decided to recuse himself from my case,” she said. “He called my attorney that I had at the time and apologized to him.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The mother told News 9 that learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child, and that the judge later recused himself from her case and apologised to her attorney.","causal_attribution":"The mother's first-person account in a broadcast interview."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints.'; 'The OSBI also looked into allegations “that Judge Wheeler offered to amend the order in exchange for a dismissal of a writ seeking relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court” and that he “eavesdropped on jury deliberations,” the DA disclosed in the letter.'; 'Prosecutors in the AG’s office “thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution,” the AG’s press secretary, Leslie Berger, said on Sept. 2.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The Criminal Justice Division of the Attorney General’s Office thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution. The Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary possess ultimate jurisdiction over disciplinary actions for allegations of inappropriate behavior by judges regardless of whether the behavior constitutes a violation of a criminal statute.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Council on Judicial Complaints, including allegations that he offered to amend the order in exchange for dismissal of the writ and that he eavesdropped on jury deliberations; the attorney general's office said the evidence did not support criminal prosecution and that judicial discipline rests with the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary.","causal_attribution":"District attorney's letter and attorney general's statement as reported; no disciplinary finding has been made."}],"effects":[{"label":"the mother faced an order denying a psychological-evaluation request, with the judge citing authorities reported to have been generated by ChatGPT","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the attorney who requested the evaluation was reprimanded in the order and sought relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court before the order was vacated","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the mother describes learning of the fabricated citations in her child custody case as alarming","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Oklahoman's report (USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect) as republished by Minnesota Lawyer; read in full from the Wayback capture of 10 September 2026 because the live page returned 403. Its ChatGPT-admission passages relay the district attorney's letter; its account of the reprimand, the Supreme Court challenge and the vacatur draws on court filings and the attorney. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.aol.com/articles/oklahoma-judge-admitted-citing-fake-030000000.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"KFOR (Oklahoma City) report syndicated on AOL, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its account of the ChatGPT admission relays the same district attorney letter. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.news9.com/oklahoma-city-news/stephens-county-mother-speaks-out-after-judge-accused-of-using-chatgpt-in-custody-case","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"News 9 (Griffin Media) interview with the mother, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its description of the ChatGPT admission also relays the district attorney's letter; the mother's own account is independent of it. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/09/stephens-county-judge-faces-discipline-over-chatgpt-written-court-order/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Hoodline rewrite of the Reuters report, read in full on 2026-09-29. Reuters relays the same district attorney letter. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["The text of the order and whether the nonexistent citations were decisive for denying the evaluation and for the reprimand.","Whether any disciplinary proceeding follows from the Council on Judicial Complaints referral.","The current state of the custody case after the vacatur and the judge's departure from it.","The exact day in November 2025 on which the order was issued."],"geography":{"basis":"The Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9 locate the order and proceedings in Stephens County, Oklahoma, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court. These establish the event and court countries as US. News 9 calls the interviewee a Stephens County mother but gives no explicit residence evidence for either counted person, so affected_person_countries is unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"This reported event connects specific ChatGPT-generated citations to an adverse order issued by a human judge. The Oklahoman and KFOR describe their use in the order, The Oklahoman reports the attorney's reprimand and successful challenge, and News 9 carries the mother's account. The AI admission is reported through one district attorney's letter, not independently verified model output. The family and attorney remain unnamed. No broader custody consequence or disciplinary finding is inferred.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9 relay a district attorney's letter saying the judge acknowledged using ChatGPT for research and incorporating at least two nonexistent citations it produced into his order. The cited authorities were presented in support of the human judge's denial of a requested evaluation and his reprimand of the attorney. This supports informed_decision_about for the affected mother and attorney. It does not establish that ChatGPT itself decided custody or communicated with either of them. The underlying letter and order were not inspected, and whether the citations determined the outcome is unknown.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Prosecutor: judge used ChatGPT citations in Oklahoma custody order later vacated","summary":"In November 2025 Stephens County Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler issued an order in a child paternity and custody case that denied one parent's request for a psychological evaluation of the other parent and reprimanded the requesting parent's attorney 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics'. The attorney challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, telling the justices that it relied on two cases that do not exist; the challenge was dismissed in March after Wheeler vacated the order, and he is no longer on the case. According to a 17 August 2026 letter from the Stephens County district attorney, Wheeler told the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and that at least two citations in it produced by ChatGPT do not exist. The mother in the case told News 9 that learning the order's citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because it concerned the custody of a child. The attorney general's office declined criminal prosecution; judicial discipline remains possible.","incidentDate":"2025-11-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-09","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used by the judge for legal research while preparing the order","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the district attorney's letter as reported by The Oklahoman and KFOR, a judge acknowledged that his custody-case order contained at least two nonexistent citations supplied by ChatGPT. The order denied a request for a psychological evaluation and reprimanded the requesting attorney. The attorney challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court before it was vacated. The mother described the discovery as alarming in a News 9 interview. The order and letter have not been inspected directly.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people affected through the judge's use of ChatGPT: the mother, whose request for a psychological evaluation was denied by the order and who describes the discovery as alarming (News 9), and the attorney who requested the evaluation and was reprimanded in the order and challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court (The Oklahoman). The child and the other parent are not counted because no harm to them is reported. The judge, the AI user, is not counted: he faces a possible disciplinary process but no sanction has been reported and the complaint bundled other allegations.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-OK","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","primarySourceLabel":"The Oklahoman via Minnesota Lawyer, 9 September 2026: judge used ChatGPT citations in custody order","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:18.787549+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:44.069668+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["justice","family-court","judge","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","institutional-use","oklahoma"]},{"id":"2025-washington-il-snapchat-flag-student-teacher-arrest","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The social media site flagged the message and warned the FBI, which then notified the Sheriff's Office'; 'the office had been informed on Jan. 29, 2025, at 1:06 p.m. that the FBI had received a threat via Snapchat involving someone at John A. Hensey School in Washington.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"District email: 'The use of that obviously inappropriate language on the social media site triggered a report to law enforcement who subsequently interviewed the student teacher.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Snapchat's systems flagged the woman's private group-chat message and warned the FBI, which notified the Tazewell County Sheriff's Office on 29 January 2025 at 1:06 p.m.","causal_attribution":"One outlet group (Peoria Journal Star) carrying two distinct records (sheriff's reports via FOIA; the district's email). The flagging technology is unspecified; no second independent outlet describes the mechanism, so the claim stays reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'In a chat with her boyfriend and her two roommates, she advised whether she should \"shoot the child or just the whole school?\"' (sheriff's reports).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Volpe sent the message to her friends, asking them whether she should \"shoot\" the student.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The flagged message asked whether she should 'shoot the child or just the whole school' (sheriff's reports' rendering); the district's email and 25News Now report her asking friends whether she should 'shoot' the student.","causal_attribution":"Wordings differ slightly between the sheriff's reports and the district/25News accounts; both versions are attributed. She confirmed sending the message and said it was a joke."},{"id":"c3","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Body-cam account: interview in an empty classroom, Miranda rights, the flagged message shown, consent forms, classroom search finding nothing; 'she would be arrested in Tazewell County'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'deputies arrested [her] at John L. Hensey Elementary School around 1 p.m. Wednesday. She was booked into the Tazewell County Jail for disorderly conduct.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Deputies interviewed her at the school, read her Miranda rights, searched her phone and belongings with consent and found no weapons; they arrested her on a disorderly conduct charge and she was booked into the Tazewell County Jail.","causal_attribution":"The arrest and booking are established by two independent local outlets; the interview detail comes from the FOIA body-cam footage and police reports."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'Deputies interviewed her and came to the conclusion that she made the comment out of \"exasperation,\" had no intentions to harm anyone, and was not a threat to the school.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"District email: 'Law enforcement officers quickly determined that the student teacher made the statement out of exasperation... but did not have any actual intent to shoot anyone or otherwise cause harm.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Sheriff's Office and the district concluded the remark was made out of exasperation, with no intent to harm and no threat to the school.","causal_attribution":"Both the district's letter and the deputies' own conclusion are attributed; no source reports any contrary finding."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'it said the student teacher would not be returning to District 50 to complete her assignment.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Superintendent Chad Allaman's letter: 'Volpe is not returning to the school to finish her educational assignment.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The district told parents she would not return to District 50 to complete her educational assignment.","causal_attribution":"The district's decision is attributed to its own letter carried by two outlets."}],"effects":[{"label":"arrest and loss of a teaching placement after an automated flag escalated a private joke to law enforcement","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.pjstar.com/story/news/local/2026/04/10/how-an-fbi-tip-led-to-arrest-of-a-student-teacher-in-washington-illinois/88217675007/","kind":"news_report_foia_records","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2026-04-10T11:15Z; 34 paragraphs). Based on sheriff's deputy and detective reports plus body-camera footage obtained by FOIA from the Tazewell County Sheriff's Office.","independence_group":"pjstar"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.pjstar.com/story/news/education/2025/01/30/washington-il-student-teacher-makes-inappropriate-shooting-comment-district-says/78061557007/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2025-01-30T23:13Z). Based on the District 50 email to parents; withheld the teacher's name.","independence_group":"pjstar"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.25newsnow.com/2025/01/31/exasperated-student-teacher-wont-return-after-allegedly-commenting-about-shooting-student/","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2025-01-31T17:07Z). Attributes to deputies and the school district; names the teacher from jail records — the name is deliberately not carried into this public record.","independence_group":"week-25news"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://thoughtcatalog.com/jeremy-london/2026/08/snapchat-scans-your-private-group-chats-and-a-22-year-old-teacher-found-out-when-deputies-showed-up-to-arrest-her-over-a-joke/","kind":"content_farm_rehash","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2026-08-02). Two substantive paragraphs, 'reportedly' framing, no place, date or document; derivative of the 2025 local reporting with embellishments. Recorded for provenance; never cited as support.","independence_group":"thought-catalog"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education","work","justice","privacy"],"unknowns":["The disposition of the disorderly conduct charge (dismissal, plea, supervision) is not reported in the inspected sources.","The flagging technology Snapchat used (automated classifiers, hash matching or otherwise) is not specified in the inspected records.","Whether she continued teacher training elsewhere is not reported.","The school's name appears as 'John A. Hensey School' (Peoria Journal Star) and 'John L. Hensey Elementary School' (25News Now); the discrepancy is unresolved.","The exact interval between sending the message and the FBI referral is not stated; content-farm claims of 'within an hour' are unverified."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: John A. Hensey School, Washington, Illinois (25News Now renders the school name 'John L. Hensey Elementary School'), and the Tazewell County Jail. Affected person: the student teacher at that school. No court proceeding is reported, so court_countries is [].","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an institutional-use automated-moderation case: a consequential institutional response (arrest, placement loss) to an automated flag of a private message, documented by FOIA-based local reporting. She is an adult; although local TV named her from jail records, she is not named here because deputies cleared her of intent and republication adds reputational risk without evidential value.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Police reports obtained under FOIA state 'the social media site flagged the message and warned the FBI', and the district's email says the language use 'triggered a report to law enforcement'; no human reporter was involved. The flagging technology (automated classifiers or otherwise) is not specified in the inspected records.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Washington, Illinois: Snapchat flagged a student teacher's private joke to the FBI; she was arrested at her school and lost her placement","summary":"On 29 January 2025, a 22-year-old student teacher at a District 50 elementary school in Washington, Illinois, vented in a private Snapchat group chat with her boyfriend and two roommates after a third-grade student turned off her computer mid lesson-plan, asking whether she should 'shoot the child or just the whole school' (per sheriff's reports). Snapchat's systems flagged the message and warned the FBI, which notified the Tazewell County Sheriff's Office at 1:06 p.m. Deputies interviewed her at the school, confirmed she sent it as a joke, searched her phone and belongings with her consent and found no weapons, and arrested her on a disorderly conduct charge; they concluded she had spoken out of 'exasperation' with no intent to harm and no threat to the school. The district told parents she would not return to complete her educational assignment.","incidentDate":"2025-01-29","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-01-30","aiSystem":"Snapchat automated content-flagging system","aiProduct":"Snapchat content-flagging system","aiCompany":"Snap Inc.","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A private joke flagged by an automated system led to an armed-response interview at her workplace, arrest and jail booking on a disorderly conduct charge, and the loss of her student-teaching placement, although deputies and the district concluded she never intended harm.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: the student teacher, subject to the platform's institutional automated flagging (counted under institutional use, not as an AI user). No student or staff member was aware of the conversation per the district; the referenced third-grade student is not counted as harmed (deputies found no threat and no one else saw the private message).","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.pjstar.com/story/news/local/2026/04/10/how-an-fbi-tip-led-to-arrest-of-a-student-teacher-in-washington-illinois/88217675007/","primarySourceLabel":"Peoria Journal Star (10 Apr 2026) — FOIA-based account: sheriff's reports and body-camera footage","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T05:24:48.263548+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:21.046347+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["privacy","automated-moderation","snapchat","education","arrest","institutional-use","illinois"]}]}