{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-11-07T02:55:32.379Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"reddit","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2026","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":11,"coverage":{"cases":11,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":10,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":11,"mixedRelations":2,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-product-team-worker-says-manager-ordered-repeated-rework-on-hallucinated-claude-reviews-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"A couple of months ago, my manager learned the magic of connectors and now every single thing I do gets reviewed by Claude.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says a new manager connected Claude to the company's systems a couple of months before the post and now has all of the poster's work reviewed by it.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"I have had to redo 500 SKUs because \"Claudine\" (the task assigner) and \"Claudeline\" (the \"checker\") keep hallucinating things that aren't there. My manager does not check our work. ... I have redone an SKUs task five times.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says the poster has had to redo 500 SKUs, and has redone an SKU task five times, because Claude's task-assigning and checking set-ups keep reporting things that are not there, and that the manager does not check the work.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account of the AI output and the manager's reliance on it; the post does not quote Claude's output."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"It's been two weeks for this task that used to take 3 days before her tenure.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says the task has taken two weeks where it used to take three days.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"She wants me to update the KB and product pages with incorrect information because the AI says so. She is not listening to my repeated protests.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says the manager wants the knowledge base and product pages updated with information the poster says is incorrect because Claude says so, over the poster's repeated protests.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account; the poster says the correct information comes from the manufacturers."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"I've been just commenting on what change was done based on what task/request. She's the only one with publishing rights btw.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In a reply the poster says each change is logged against the task or request that prompted it and that the manager alone has publishing rights.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account; context on the workflow."}],"effects":[{"label":"work ordered redone repeatedly on Claude reviews the poster calls hallucinated (poster's account)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"told to change product documentation to match the AI over the poster's protests (poster's account)","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1xayeb2/my_manager_has_lost_her_damn_mind_thanks_to_this/","kind":"social_media_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-21 from the arctic_shift Reddit archive (posts/ids and comments/search, HTTP 200); reddit.com itself returned HTTP 403 to the fetcher. No translation and no human reviewer. The poster's username is not recorded. Original post, 17:27 UTC 20 Oct 2026; post and comments re-read about 03:05 UTC 21 Oct.","independence_group":"reddit-antiai-product-worker-claude-reviews"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1xayeb2/comment/19re93hprzoo0/","kind":"social_media_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-21 from the arctic_shift Reddit archive (posts/ids and comments/search, HTTP 200); reddit.com itself returned HTTP 403 to the fetcher. No translation and no human reviewer. The poster's username is not recorded. The poster's own reply in the thread (17:52 UTC 20 Oct 2026); same author, same source group.","independence_group":"reddit-antiai-product-worker-claude-reviews"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["What Claude said in its reviews and whether any of the problems it reported were real.","The manager's account of the reviews and the rework orders.","Where the company and the poster are located and when the rework began.","Whether the documentation changes the manager requested were made or published."],"geography":{"basis":"The post and replies do not say where the poster, the manager or the company is located; the poster says the owner pays \"us non-Americans\" according to their location, which does not locate the poster or the company.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of a manager using Claude's reviews to order repeated rework of the poster's tasks and changes to product documentation, described with attribution and without corroboration. The post does not quote the AI output, and the manager's view is not recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-21"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The poster says the manager has Claude, connected to the company's CMS and Asana, review the poster's work, that its reviews report problems that are not there, and that the manager, without checking the work, turns that feedback into orders to redo it and to change product documentation to match the AI. That describes Claude's output being used in the manager's decisions about the poster's work, which the poster connects to five rounds of rework and a two-week delay. The post does not quote the output.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"First-person post: product team worker says manager ordered repeated rework and wrong product documentation on Claude reviews the worker calls hallucinated","summary":"In a Reddit post on 20 October 2026, an associate product manager at a privately owned e-commerce business writes that a new manager, who joined about three months earlier, connected Claude to the company's content management system and Asana and now has every piece of the poster's work reviewed by it. The poster says Claude keeps hallucinating problems that are not there, that the manager does not check the work or read the team's comments, and that the poster has had to redo 500 SKUs and has redone an SKU task five times, so that a task that used to take three days has taken two weeks. The poster also says the manager wants the knowledge base and product pages changed to match Claude's account of the company's own products, which the poster says is wrong because the information comes from the manufacturers. The post does not quote Claude's output, and the manager's account is not recorded. The account is uncorroborated.","incidentDate":"2026-01-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-20","aiSystem":"Claude, which by the poster's account the manager connected to the company's content management system and Asana and uses to review and assign the team's work","aiProduct":"Claude (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The poster says a manager ordered the poster's work redone again and again on the strength of Claude reviews the poster calls hallucinated, stretching a three-day task to two weeks, and wants product documentation changed to match the AI (first-person account, uncorroborated).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the poster, who did not use Claude for the reviews and was affected through the manager's use of it. Other team members are mentioned but no harm to a specific other person is described.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1xayeb2/my_manager_has_lost_her_damn_mind_thanks_to_this/","primarySourceLabel":"Reddit post by the poster, 20 Oct 2026: manager has Claude review all work and orders rework on its feedback","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-21T03:05:43.416739+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-21T03:05:43.416739+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","workplace","claude"]},{"id":"2026-online-writing-group-host-recorded-session-with-ai-transcription-software-without-asking-member-says-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"yesterday, the host started recording us using AI transcription software. A participant noticed the notification and asked him about it.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says that on the day before the post the host of an online writing group started recording the session using AI transcription software, and that a participant noticed the notification and asked him about it.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account; the software is not named."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"She and I said we weren't comfortable with it at all. He seemed embarrassed and said, \"Sorry, I should have asked first,\" but followed up by whining twice that members had requested it.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says the poster and that participant told the host they were not comfortable with the recording, and that he said he should have asked first but also said members had requested it.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account of the objection and the host's response."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"I mentioned to them that I left another group because they were using AI transcription software","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says they had earlier told the host and some regulars that they left another group because it used AI transcription software.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account of a prior objection known to the host."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"It's literally a group where people read out their original work.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster describes the group as one where members read out their original work.","causal_attribution":"Poster's description of the group's activity; the post does not say what was said or read while the recording ran."}],"effects":[{"label":"recorded with AI transcription software without being asked (poster's account)","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"poster and another member objected to the recording (poster's account)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1xa7rkt/ai_transcription_software_used_in_writing_groups/","kind":"social_media_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-20 through the arctic_shift Reddit archive API (posts/ids, HTTP 200) and re-read on 2026-10-26 through the reddit.com thread RSS (HTTP 200); no translation and no human reviewer. The poster's username is not recorded. Between the two reads the poster edited the post, removing where they live and changing some wording; the passages cited here are unchanged. Two comments by other users, no reply by the poster. Post created 20:15 UTC 19 Oct 2026; the poster writes 'yesterday', so the session was on 18 Oct 2026, a Sunday, when the group does prompts and exercises.","independence_group":"reddit-antiai-writing-group-member-post"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Which AI transcription software was used and whether audio or transcripts were sent to its servers.","Whether the recording was stopped, and whether any transcript was kept, shared or deleted.","How many members were recorded and which of them had requested or agreed to the recording.","The host's own account.","What was said or read while the recording ran.","Where the poster lives."],"geography":{"basis":"The session was held online and the post does not say where the host or other members were, so no event country is recorded. The post as it now reads does not say where the poster lives, so no affected-person country is recorded.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-10-06 privacy ruling and the public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of a writing-group session being recorded with AI transcription software without the members being asked, after the poster had told the host of their objection. Described with attribution and without corroboration; the host's apology and his statement that members had requested the recording are recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-26"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The poster says the host started recording the session using AI transcription software and that a participant noticed the software's notification. That describes what members, including the poster, said in the session being captured by AI transcription software without their being asked, which the poster connects to their discomfort and objection. The post does not name the software or say whether audio or transcripts were sent to a server, kept or deleted.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"Writing-group member says online session host began recording members with AI transcription software without asking; two members objected (first-person)","summary":"In a Reddit post on 19 October 2026, a member of an online creative writing group writes that the day before, the group's host started recording the session using AI transcription software without asking. According to the post, a participant noticed the notification and asked him about it, and the poster and that participant told him they were not comfortable with it. The poster says the host seemed embarrassed and said he should have asked first, but also said members had requested it. The poster had earlier told the host and regulars that they had left another group because it used AI transcription software, and describes the group as one where people read out their original work. The post does not name the software or say whether the recording stopped or what happened to it. The account is uncorroborated.","incidentDate":"2026-10-18","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-19","aiSystem":"AI transcription software, not named in the post, that the group's host used to record an online session, as the poster describes it","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI transcription tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_autonomy"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The poster says the host recorded the writing-group session with AI transcription software without asking, and that the poster and another member told him they were not comfortable with it (first-person account, uncorroborated).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people: the poster and the participant who noticed the notification, both of whom the poster says told the host they were not comfortable. Other members recorded are not counted; the host said some members had requested the recording.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1xa7rkt/ai_transcription_software_used_in_writing_groups/","primarySourceLabel":"Reddit post in r/antiai by a writing-group member, 19 Oct 2026: host recorded the session with AI transcription software","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-20T03:14:35.332376+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-26T03:10:55.256787+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","privacy","consent","transcription"]},{"id":"2026-chatgpt-pro-subscriber-says-openai-ai-support-assistant-refund-ended-restored-subscription-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On September 30, 2026, I paid $200 for a ChatGPT Pro subscription'; 'OpenAI explicitly acknowledged that my account had been disabled in error and apologized'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says they paid $200 for ChatGPT Pro on 30 September 2026, the account was disabled two days later and appeals were rejected for about two weeks, and on 17 October OpenAI acknowledged in an email that it had been disabled in error.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account; the acknowledgement email was not retrieved. No AI involvement in the suspension is described."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I contacted its AI-powered support system to request compensation for the lost days'; 'The AI assistant explained that it could not directly provide credits, usage-limit resets, or discounts'; 'offered me a proportional refund of'; 'The assistant stated that accepting the refund would immediately cancel my ChatGPT Pro subscription'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says that when they asked OpenAI's AI-powered support assistant for compensation, it said it could not give credits, usage resets or discounts and offered a proportional refund of $86.67, warning that accepting it would immediately cancel the subscription.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account of the assistant's replies; the conversation was not retrieved."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The AI did warn me about cancellation'; 'Yes, I approve'; 'I had repeatedly expressed my desire to continue using the subscription'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says they confirmed the refund after the warning while having said they wanted to keep the subscription.","causal_attribution":"Records the poster's own confirmation, which bears on causation."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The assistant told me that my paid access had ended and that my account would return to the Free plan'; 'The assistant explained that it could not reverse a refund once it had been processed'; 'It suggested purchasing another subscription'; 'This was extremely frustrating'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says the assistant then told them the paid access had ended, said it could not reverse the refund and suggested buying another subscription, which the poster found extremely frustrating.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The support system eventually confirmed that my request had been forwarded to a specialist'; 'As of this post, I am still waiting for a substantive resolution'; 'At the time of writing, I have not independently confirmed that the $86.67 refund has actually arrived'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says the request was forwarded to a human specialist and was unresolved at the time of posting, and that the refund had not yet been confirmed as received.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."}],"effects":[{"label":"AI support assistant's refund ended a restored Pro subscription the poster wanted to keep (poster's account)","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPTcomplaints/comments/1x8oayw/i_paid_200_for_chatgpt_pro_openai_banned_me_after/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-18 at about 03:06 UTC from the entry for this post in Reddit's sitewide search RSS feed (full self-text). The arctic_shift archive copy shows '[removed]', with the removal recorded as made by Reddit rather than the subreddit's moderators (reason not stated). The thread's comment feed, re-read at about 03:09 UTC on 18 October, showed two comments by other users and no reply by the poster. The poster's handle is not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-chatgptcomplaints-pro-refund-poster"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["finance","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The content of the support conversation and the acknowledgement email, which the poster describes but did not publish in the text read.","Whether a human set or reviewed the refund-with-cancellation terms the assistant offered.","Why the account was disabled and whether that decision involved automated systems.","Whether the human specialist restored the subscription or offered other compensation, and whether the refund arrived.","Why Reddit removed the post."],"geography":{"basis":"The post does not say where the poster was when the events occurred, and no country is recorded.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of an AI support assistant's refund decision ending a subscriber's restored paid access when they sought compensation. Described with attribution and without corroboration, including the poster's acknowledgement that the assistant warned of cancellation and that they confirmed; the poster's handle is not recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-18"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The poster says OpenAI's AI-powered support assistant declined the compensation the poster proposed, offered a proportional refund conditional on immediate cancellation, processed it on the poster's confirmation, ended the paid access and said it could not reverse the refund. The poster connects these replies and actions to the loss of the restored subscription. The poster acknowledges being warned and confirming; the conversation was not retrieved and whether a human set or reviewed the refund terms is not known.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","made_decision_about"]},"name":"ChatGPT Pro subscriber says OpenAI's AI support assistant, asked for compensation, processed a refund that ended a restored subscription (first-person account)","summary":"In a public post to r/ChatGPTcomplaints created on 17 October 2026, a ChatGPT Pro subscriber writes that OpenAI disabled their account two days after they paid $200 on 30 September, rejected their appeals for about two weeks, and on 17 October restored the account, acknowledging in an email that it had been disabled in error. The poster says they then asked OpenAI's AI-powered support assistant for compensation for the lost days while keeping the subscription. According to the poster, the assistant said it could not give credits, usage resets or discounts, offered a proportional refund of $86.67 and warned that accepting it would immediately cancel the subscription; the poster replied 'Yes, I approve', and the assistant then said the paid access had ended, that it could not reverse the refund, and suggested buying another subscription. The poster acknowledges the warning and their confirmation but says they misunderstood the consequence and had asked about the lost period, not the remaining one. The request was forwarded to a human specialist and was unresolved at the time of posting. The account is uncorroborated; the post was later removed by Reddit for an unstated reason.","incidentDate":"2026-10-17","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-17","aiSystem":"OpenAI's AI-powered support assistant for ChatGPT subscribers (as described by the poster), which handled a compensation request and processed a refund with cancellation","aiProduct":"OpenAI support assistant (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The poster says OpenAI's AI support assistant, asked for compensation after an acknowledged wrongful ban, processed a refund that immediately ended their restored Pro subscription, could not reverse it, and suggested buying a new one (first-person account, uncorroborated; the poster confirmed the refund after a warning).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the poster, who used the support assistant.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPTcomplaints/comments/1x8oayw/i_paid_200_for_chatgpt_pro_openai_banned_me_after/","primarySourceLabel":"r/ChatGPTcomplaints, 17 October 2026: \"I paid $200 for ChatGPT Pro. OpenAI banned me after 2 days...\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-18T03:11:31.45341+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-18T03:11:31.45341+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","openai","ai-customer-support","refund","subscription"]},{"id":"2026-partner-used-online-ai-jury-verdict-to-end-chores-dispute-engagement-called-off-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"He told me he used an online AI jury to find out which one of us was wrong. This 'jury' said he was right","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"used an AI jury to determine which of us was right after a (recurring) argument","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The poster says their fiancé told them he had used an online AI jury to find out which of them was wrong in an argument and that the 'jury' said he was right.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account of what the fiancé told them; the posts do not say the poster saw the AI output."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"now he says the AI told him he's right and I'm being unreasonable","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"refused to discuss the subject of said argument further because the jury determined that he was right and I was wrong","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The poster says the fiancé then refused to discuss the argument, saying the AI had told him he was right and the poster was being unreasonable.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account; connects the fiancé's use of the verdict to the refusal."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"This morning he was so smug about it I left to go stay with my sister","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says they left to stay with a relative on the morning of the June post because of the fiancé's attitude about the AI verdict.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"since he wouldn't discuss it with me and kept on harping about the AI saying he was right I ended things","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The poster says the relationship is over, that they cancelled a wedding planned for the last Saturday of November and tried to recover what money they could, and that they ended things because the fiancé would not discuss the dispute and kept citing the AI.","causal_attribution":"Poster's own causal account; the poster also describes a recurring dispute over housework that predates the AI use."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"We have had the same argument multiple time.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"considering how much we argued before he used the AI jury","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The poster describes a recurring disagreement over chores and housework that existed before the AI tool was used.","causal_attribution":"Context: the dispute predates the AI use."}],"effects":[{"label":"partner's refusal to discuss a dispute after citing an AI jury's verdict (poster's account)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"engagement ended and wedding cancelled, with the poster trying to recover money spent on it (poster's account)","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/comments/1tynowi/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English. On 2026-10-17 the self-text of the 6 June 2026 post and the poster's three replies were retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by author. On 2026-10-24 the archive copy was re-read and compared with the post as served by reddit.com's RSS feed of the thread on 2026-10-23 (a live re-fetch on 2026-10-24 was rate-limited): the poster has since edited the post's wording, and the locators quote the edited text. The poster handle is not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-offmychest-ai-jury-poster"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/comments/1x20ow9/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English. On 2026-10-17 the self-text of the 9 October 2026 update and the poster's one reply were retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by author. On 2026-10-24 the post was re-read as served by reddit.com's RSS feed of the thread (HTTP 200): the poster has since corrected typing errors, and the locators quote the edited text. The poster handle is not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-offmychest-ai-jury-poster"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the fiancé used, what he put into it and what it actually said; the poster knows the verdict only through the fiancé.","Where the couple lived.","How much money was spent on the wedding and how much was recovered.","Whether the fiancé disputes the poster's account; his view is not recorded."],"geography":{"basis":"Neither post says where the couple lived. Vocabulary in the posts and the subreddit are not evidence of location.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account, in two posts by one author, of a partner using an online AI tool's verdict about the poster to refuse discussion of a dispute, followed by the end of the engagement and a cancelled wedding. Described with attribution and without corroboration; the earlier recurring dispute and the poster's own decision to end the engagement are recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-24"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The poster says their fiancé told them he submitted their argument to an online AI jury, which judged that he was right and, in his words as the poster relays them, that the poster was being unreasonable. The poster connects that verdict to his refusal to discuss the dispute any further and gives his repeated citing of it as the reason they ended the engagement. The posts do not say that the poster saw the output, and the tool and what was put into it are not described.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"First-person posts: person says their fiancé cited an online AI jury's verdict to refuse to discuss a recurring dispute, and they ended the engagement","summary":"In two public posts to r/offmychest, on 6 June and 9 October 2026, a person writes that after a recurring argument about chores their fiancé told them he had used an online AI jury to decide which of them was right, that the 'jury' said he was right, and that he then refused to discuss the argument, saying the AI had told him he was right and the poster was being unreasonable. The poster says they left to stay with a relative on the morning of the first post. In the October update they write that the relationship is over, that they cancelled a wedding planned for late November and tried to recover what money they could, and that they ended things because their ex-fiancé would not discuss the dispute and 'kept on harping about the AI saying he was right'. The posts do not say that the poster saw the AI output; what it said is known only through the fiancé's account as relayed by the poster. The tool is not named. The poster also describes a longer-running disagreement over housework that predates the AI use. The account is uncorroborated.","incidentDate":"2026-06-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-06-06","aiSystem":"An online 'AI jury' tool that, according to the poster's fiancé, judged which partner was right in an argument (not named; its output is known only through the fiancé's report)","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI jury tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["relationship_disruption","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The poster says their fiancé's reliance on an AI jury's verdict to refuse discussion left them angry and at their wits' end, that they left to stay with a relative, and that they later ended the engagement, cancelled the wedding and tried to recover money spent on it (first-person account, uncorroborated; amount not stated).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the poster, who did not use the tool and was harmed through their fiancé's use of it. The fiancé's own experience is not counted because no harm to him is reported beyond the poster's remark that he seemed shocked.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/comments/1x20ow9/","primarySourceLabel":"r/offmychest, 9 Oct 2026: \"My fiancé used an AI jury to determine which one of us was right after an argument (UPDATE)\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-17T03:07:51.045828+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-24T03:04:54.601769+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","relationship","engagement-ended","ai-verdict"]},{"id":"2026-ray-ban-meta-glasses-owner-says-meta-ai-stored-conversation-recordings-without-wake-word-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'My glasses appear to capture conversations even when I am simply talking to another person and have not said'; 'setting is already turned OFF'; 'I first noticed this behavior after a recent firmware update'; 'I have observed the same behavior on THREE different pairs of Ray-Ban Meta glasses, including 2nd- and 3rd-generation models'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"said this happened to them across three Meta Ray-Bans and that they had the “Respond without Hey Meta” setting turned off","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The owner says their glasses captured conversations with another person although they had not said \"Hey Meta\" and the setting to respond without it was off, first after a recent firmware update and on three pairs including second- and third-generation models.","causal_attribution":"Owner's own account, relayed by Ars Technica; the trigger for the activations is not established."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Meta AI app saves audio recordings and text transcripts of these conversations in my conversation history'; image attached to the post: 'See, listen to and delete stored recordings and transcripts of stored voice activity'; 'October 12 at 1:14 PM'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The owner says the Meta AI app stored audio recordings and text transcripts of these conversations in their history; a screenshot attached to the post shows the app's voice activity log with stored entries dated 12 October.","causal_attribution":"Owner's account and screenshot; the screenshot does not show how each entry was triggered, and transmission to Meta's servers is not established."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Their response was to recommend disabling microphone and camera permissions, turning off Wear Detection, deleting voice history, and disabling automatic updates'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The owner says Meta Support recommended turning off microphone and camera permissions and Wear Detection, deleting voice history and turning off automatic updates.","causal_attribution":"Owner's account of the support exchange; Meta Support's own record is not public."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Everything off - still recording!'; 'consider joining the class action lawsuit'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Later on 13 October the owner replied that recording continued with everything turned off, and urged others to consider joining an existing class action over Meta's AI glasses.","causal_attribution":"Owner's replies in the thread; the class action is a separate, earlier proceeding and is not described here."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'a Meta spokesperson told Android Authority that the issue'; 'has been resolved'; 'People can manage, review and delete voice logs of their interactions with Meta AI via settings at any time'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'메타 대변인은 안드로이드 오소리티 측에'; '문제가 해결됐다'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Android Authority reported the discussions on Tuesday. Later that day it published a response from Meta that read:; “This issue has been resolved. People can manage, review, and delete voice logs of their interactions with Meta AI via settings at any time.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"\"This issue has been resolved,\" a Meta spokesperson said in a statement to Android Authority.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"A Meta spokesperson told Android Authority that the issue had been resolved and that people can manage, review and delete voice logs of their interactions with Meta AI in settings.","causal_attribution":"Meta statement relayed by four outlets from one Android Authority report; what was resolved is not stated."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Meta hasn’t said what caused the Ray-Ban Metas to record people without user consent.; Meta hasn’t confirmed if a faulty update caused the bug.; We also don’t know how many Meta smart glasses were affected. There are a few reports online, but Android Authority said it was unable to replicate the problem before Meta said it fixed it.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"While Meta says it has since fixed the problem, the company did not share what caused the issue.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Ars Technica reports that Meta has not said what caused the recordings, whether a firmware update was responsible or how many glasses were affected, and that Android Authority said it could not reproduce the problem before Meta said it was fixed; Mashable reports that Meta did not share the cause.","causal_attribution":"Outlets' reporting on the limits of Meta's statement; it neither confirms nor refutes the owner's account."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Reply by the owner, 16 October 2026, in the thread: 'They push a new update on my glasses'; 'still same issue'; 'They are not looking to fix this issue'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 16 October 2026 the owner replied that a new update had been pushed to their glasses and that the issue was the same, and wrote that Meta was not looking to fix it.","causal_attribution":"The owner's account after Meta's statement that the issue had been resolved; the firmware version and what the update changed are not public."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Complaint, ECF 1 (filed 10/19/26), paras 1, 3-5: 'This is a class action lawsuit brought against Defendant for wiretapping the oral'; 'Product activated, listened to, and recorded consumers' conversations even when the user did not'; 'was listening to Plaintiff and recording his conversations with others, even when Plaintiff did not'; 'communications are stored in his account's Voice Activity Log'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"On 19 October 2026 a proposed class action, Subia v. Meta Platforms, Inc., was filed in the Northern District of California alleging that Meta AI glasses activated, listened to and recorded conversations without the wake phrase, including the plaintiff's own conversations stored in his Voice Activity Log, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.","causal_attribution":"The complaint documents that these allegations were made; whether the glasses recorded the plaintiff's conversations is unproven, and the complaint says the cause is unknown."},{"id":"c9","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Complaint, ECF 1, para 19 and note 5: 'Ray-Ban Meta owner says three'; 'separate pairs, spanning second- and third-generation models, captured ordinary conversations'; 'ANDROID AUTHORITY (Oct. 13, 2026)'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The complaint quotes Android Authority's report that a Ray-Ban Meta owner said three separate pairs, across second- and third-generation models, captured ordinary conversations without the wake phrase.","causal_attribution":"Documents the complaint's use of reporting about this owner's account; it adds no independent evidence of what the owner's glasses did."}],"effects":[{"label":"conversations with other people captured without the wake word and stored as recordings and transcripts in the Meta AI app (owner's account)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/RaybanMeta/comments/1x4n96n/warning_my_rayban_meta_glasses_are_recording/","kind":"social_media_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16: the post text, its attached screenshot and the author's replies in the same thread, retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API (HTTP 200) because reddit.com returned HTTP 403; no translation and no human reviewer. The author's username is not recorded. Re-read on 2026-10-22 through the thread's reddit.com RSS feed (HTTP 200), which carries the owner's reply of 16 October 2026.","independence_group":"reddit-ray-ban-meta-owner-wake-word-recording"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://futurism.com/robots-and-machines/meta-glasses-ray-ban-recording-privacy","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 (HTTP 200); no translation. Futurism relays Android Authority's report, which carries the Meta statement, and quotes the Reddit post; Android Authority itself returned HTTP 403.","independence_group":"android-authority-meta-glasses-report-relays"},{"id":"s3","url":"http://www.ainet.link/29357","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ko","translation_note":"Read in Korean by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 (HTTP 200); passages translated by the research agent, no human translator. AI넷 relays the same Android Authority report and Meta statement, so it shares Futurism's source group.","independence_group":"android-authority-meta-glasses-report-relays"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/10/ray-ban-meta-smart-glasses-found-recording-audio-without-wearers-consent/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 (HTTP 200); no translation. Ars Technica quotes the Reddit post and relays the Meta statement that Android Authority published; its own request to Meta had no reply at publication.","independence_group":"android-authority-meta-glasses-report-relays"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://mashable.com/tech/meta-confirms-smart-glasses-recording-without-being-activated","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 (HTTP 200); no translation. Mashable relays the Meta statement given to Android Authority and summarises the Reddit post.","independence_group":"android-authority-meta-glasses-report-relays"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.481486/gov.uscourts.cand.481486.1.0_1.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-25 from CourtListener RECAP (HTTP 200, 13 pages); no translation. The complaint documents the plaintiff's allegations; its quotation of the owner's account comes through Android Authority's report, so it does not independently corroborate the owner.","independence_group":"subia-v-meta-platforms-complaint"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["privacy","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Whether the recordings and transcripts were transmitted to or retained on Meta's servers.","What triggered the activations and what Meta says it fixed; Ars Technica reports that Meta has not said what caused the recordings, and the owner says the issue continued after a further update on 16 October 2026.","How many glasses were affected; Ars Technica reports that Meta has not said, and that Android Authority could not reproduce the problem.","Who the other people in the recorded conversations were and whether they were told.","The country, the firmware version and the full period over which recordings were stored.","Whether the Subia complaint's allegations will be tested; no class has been certified and Meta had not responded on the docket by 25 October 2026."],"geography":{"basis":"The post and the owner's replies name no country or place; a reply labelling a settings screenshot as the US iOS app describes the app version and does not locate the events. No country is inferred.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-10-06 privacy rule and the public-forum rule as a first-person account, with a screenshot, of private conversations recorded into an AI assistant's history without the owner activating it. Claims are attributed to the owner. Meta's statement that the issue was resolved is recorded with the outlets' reports that Meta has not said what caused it and that Android Authority could not reproduce it; server transmission is not established. The owner's later reply that the issue continued after a further update is recorded as the owner's account. A later proposed class action quoting reporting of this owner's account is recorded as a filing whose allegations are unproven.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-25"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The owner says the glasses' AI assistant captured their conversations with another person without the wake word and with the respond-without-wake-word setting off, and that the Meta AI app stored audio recordings and text transcripts of those conversations in its history; the attached screenshot shows the app's voice activity log with stored entries dated 12 October. The recording of private conversations into the AI assistant without the owner's intent is the reported privacy harm. Whether the recordings were transmitted to Meta's servers, and what triggered the activations, are not established.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"Ray-Ban Meta glasses owner says Meta AI stored recordings and transcripts of conversations captured without the wake word; Meta says the issue is resolved","summary":"In a Reddit post on 13 October 2026, an owner of Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses says the glasses captured conversations they were having with another person although they had not said the wake word \"Hey Meta\" and the setting for responding without it was turned off. The owner says the Meta AI app saved audio recordings and text transcripts of these conversations in their history, that Meta AI never answered, and that they saw the same behaviour on three pairs (second and third generation) after a recent firmware update. A screenshot attached to the post shows the app's voice activity log with stored entries dated 12 October. The owner says Meta Support advised turning off microphone and camera permissions, Wear Detection and automatic updates and deleting voice history, and later replied that recording continued with everything turned off. On 16 October 2026, after Meta's statement, the owner replied that a new update had been pushed to their glasses and the issue was unchanged. A Meta spokesperson told Android Authority, as relayed by Futurism, Ars Technica and Mashable, that the issue had been resolved. Ars Technica reports that Meta has not said what caused the recordings or how many glasses were affected, and that Android Authority could not reproduce the problem before Meta's statement. The owner says they cannot establish whether the recordings were sent to Meta's servers. On 19 October 2026 a California buyer filed a proposed class action against Meta in federal court (Subia v. Meta Platforms) alleging that Meta AI glasses recorded his conversations without the wake phrase, in violation of California's wiretapping law; the complaint quotes reporting of this owner's three-pairs account. Its allegations are unproven.","incidentDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-13","aiSystem":"Meta AI assistant on Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses (second- and third-generation pairs, per the owner), with recordings and transcripts stored in the Meta AI app's voice activity log","aiProduct":"Meta AI (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"An owner of Ray-Ban Meta glasses says their conversations with other people were captured without the wake word and stored as recordings and transcripts in the Meta AI app (first-person account; Meta says the issue was resolved; transmission to Meta's servers not established).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the owner whose Meta AI app stored the recordings and transcripts (own use). The people the owner was talking to were also recorded by the owner's account but are not described or counted. Commenters' similar reports are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/RaybanMeta/comments/1x4n96n/warning_my_rayban_meta_glasses_are_recording/","primarySourceLabel":"Reddit r/RaybanMeta post and replies by the glasses owner, 13 Oct 2026: recordings stored without saying Hey Meta","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:04:08.907004+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-25T03:08:54.231326+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","smart-glasses","voice-assistant","privacy","recording"]},{"id":"2026-chatgpt-adult-subscriber-says-account-classified-as-teen-and-restricted-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Then age verification rolled out and I got classified as a teen account, no kidding, on my 36 th birthday.' ... 'But not when I got put on a restricted account, go figure.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster, who says they are 36, says that when OpenAI's age checks rolled out their ChatGPT account was classified as a teen account and was put on a restricted account.","causal_attribution":"The poster's own account, uncorroborated, so reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'After I had already emailed them about non-ID/photo options to verify like your credit card if I should get hit by this. They just sent me a canned answer about how great Persona is and when I escalated it to data protection, they basically said that I had to be profiled first'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says they had earlier emailed OpenAI asking for verification options without ID or a photo, received a canned reply about Persona, and on escalating to data protection was told they had to be profiled first.","causal_attribution":"The poster's own account of correspondence that is not published, so reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'So I cancelled my subscription'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster cancelled their ChatGPT subscription after the classification.","causal_attribution":"The poster's own statement; the connection to the classification is the poster's sequence of events."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'If ChatGPT predicts that an account may belong to someone under 18 and the account is eligible, ChatGPT automatically enables the ChatGPT for Teens experience.' ... 'ChatGPT uses an age prediction system. It looks at different signals linked to your account.' ... 'No system is perfect. Sometimes ChatGPT may get it wrong.' ... 'If you are 18 or older and were placed in the ChatGPT for Teens experience by mistake, you can verify your age.' ... 'Your account stays active, and you can still use ChatGPT to learn, create, and ask questions.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"OpenAI's Help Center says ChatGPT uses an age prediction system that reads account signals, automatically enables the ChatGPT for Teens experience when it predicts an account may belong to someone under 18, can get this wrong, and lets adults placed there by mistake verify their age; it says the account stays active.","causal_attribution":"Directly established by OpenAI's own published page as a description of the system; it does not establish what happened to this account."}],"effects":[{"label":"An adult subscriber's ChatGPT account was classified as a teen account and restricted, according to the poster","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPTcomplaints/comments/1x2x24z/done_with_chatgpt_and_what_i_realized_after/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English post read in full from the subreddit's Atom feed and the post's own comment feed (HTTP 200 each, 11 Oct 2026); the comment feed held only the post, with no replies. The URL carries no username; the poster's handle is not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-poster-1x2x24z"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://web.archive.org/web/20260924151959/https://help.openai.com/en/articles/12652064-age-prediction-in-chatgpt","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English Help Center page read through a Wayback Machine capture of 24 September 2026 (the live page answered HTTP 403 to the fetcher); the page describes the system in general and does not mention this poster.","independence_group":"openai-help-center"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","privacy"],"unknowns":["When the classification happened. The post gives no date; it describes about six months of heavy use before the post of 11 October 2026 and places the classification after the poster subscribed, so the record uses that six-month window.","Which mechanism classified the account (OpenAI's behaviour-based age prediction or another check); the poster calls it age verification and had not verified.","Which restrictions applied to the account, and whether the poster attempted the verification route OpenAI describes.","Whether OpenAI has reviewed or reversed the classification."],"geography":{"basis":"The post does not say where the poster lives or uses ChatGPT; the mention of a data-protection escalation does not establish a country. No court is involved.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account: an adult says ChatGPT classified their account as a teen account and restricted it, that a data-protection escalation was met with a requirement to be profiled first, and that they cancelled the subscription. OpenAI's Help Center documents the age prediction system that makes such classifications. The account is uncorroborated and attributed to the poster; the handle is not recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The poster says that when OpenAI's age checks rolled out, their account was classified as a teen account and put on a restricted account; the post describes asking OpenAI about verification options in advance and does not mention completing a verification. OpenAI's Help Center says ChatGPT may use the age associated with an account, a verified age or age prediction to decide whether the account gets the teen experience, and that its age prediction system reads signals linked to the account and can get this wrong. The post does not name the mechanism. The poster gives their age as 36 and describes no verification, so of the paths OpenAI lists, age prediction is the one that fits the poster's account; this is an inference from OpenAI's page, not a statement in the post. That classification is the system's decision about the poster (made_decision_about), and the restricted account and the cancelled subscription are the consequences the poster reports. The classification rests on the poster's account alone, which does not name the mechanism beyond age verification, so the status is reported.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Adult ChatGPT Plus subscriber says the account was classified as a teen and restricted, and that OpenAI said profiling had to come first; first-person post","summary":"In a Reddit post of 11 October 2026, a ChatGPT Plus subscriber who says they are an adult (36, by the post's own account) writes that when OpenAI's age checks rolled out their account was classified as a teen account and put on a restricted account. The poster says they had earlier emailed OpenAI asking for verification options without ID or a photo, received a canned reply about the verification provider Persona, and on escalating to data protection was told they had to be profiled first. The poster says they then cancelled the subscription. OpenAI's Help Center says ChatGPT uses an age prediction system that reads account signals, automatically enables the teen experience when it predicts an account may belong to someone under 18, can get this wrong, and lets adults verify their age to remove it. The account is the poster's own and is not corroborated.","incidentDate":"2026-04-11","incidentEndDate":"2026-10-11","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-11","aiSystem":"ChatGPT's age check that placed the account in the ChatGPT for Teens experience, which the poster calls age verification; OpenAI says such placements use an account's associated or verified age or an age prediction system that reads account signals","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the poster's own account, ChatGPT classified their adult account as a teen account and restricted it, OpenAI answered a data-protection escalation by saying the poster had to be profiled first, and the poster cancelled the paid subscription.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the poster, whose own account was classified and restricted. Other users mentioned in general terms are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPTcomplaints/comments/1x2x24z/done_with_chatgpt_and_what_i_realized_after/","primarySourceLabel":"Reddit r/ChatGPTcomplaints, 11 Oct 2026: first-person post, adult subscriber classified as a teen account","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-11T03:15:35.440619+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T03:15:35.440619+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","chatgpt","age-prediction","teen-account","account-restriction","persona"]},{"id":"2026-patient-reports-chatgpt-recording-at-clinic-without-consent","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"recording","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Do you mind if I have AI take notes today?","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"When I expressed that I don't want it","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"queued up to ChatGPT and already recording","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The patient reports that the nurse’s phone showed ChatGPT already recording when the patient declined AI note-taking.","causal_attribution":"The recording and product identification are the patient’s account. No device evidence or independent confirmation was inspected."},{"id":"objection","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"having something recording in the clinic without notice","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"told me she doesn't understand why some people make such a big deal of it","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The patient says there had been no notice of the recording and the nurse dismissed their objection.","causal_attribution":"The described adverse experience is loss of control over recording and consent; no legal finding or onward data transfer is inferred."},{"id":"clarification","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Her phone was on the counter with chrome open to chatgpt.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"She had already been recording from the moment she entered the room","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"I had to insist that it be disabled and I don't think she would have, had I not insisted.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In replies to the same thread, the patient says the phone displayed ChatGPT in Chrome, that recording had already begun when the nurse entered, before asking consent, and that the recording was disabled only after the patient insisted.","causal_attribution":"The same author adds these observations. Their illustrative introduction with name/reason placeholders is not treated as an actual consultation transcript. Server transmission and later handling remain unknown."}],"effects":[{"label":"The patient reports that the nurse’s phone showed ChatGPT already recording when the patient declined AI note-taking.","claim_id":"recording","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1ww4yn4/today_i_was_radicalized/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Original English post body read directly and through its Arctic Shift capture. The archive gives created_utc 1790974521 (2 October 2026, 20:55 UTC). The author says the appointment was today; timezone is unknown, so only October is recorded for the event. Replies by the same author remain one reporting chain.","independence_group":"reddit-original-patient-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1ww4yn4/comment/pdhsn3l/","kind":"forum_comment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Original English author reply inspected in the Arctic Shift thread capture. The reply author matches the original poster. It adds detail, not independent corroboration.","independence_group":"reddit-original-patient-account"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1ww4yn4/comment/pdhtd2k/","kind":"forum_comment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Original English author reply inspected in the Arctic Shift thread capture. The reply author matches the original poster. It adds detail, not independent corroboration.","independence_group":"reddit-original-patient-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["health","privacy"],"unknowns":["Exact local event day and clinic location; the archived post timestamp is 2 October 2026 UTC.","Independent confirmation of the account and the clinic’s response.","What information was captured, the recording duration and whether it was deleted.","Whether information was transmitted, retained or used for training.","The software configuration, account type and any legal finding."],"geography":{"basis":"The original account gives no event location. References to a privacy law and the language do not establish a country.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Reviewed first-person account of an actual recording reportedly occurring in an identified AI service before consent. Published with attribution and explicit limits under the approved input-privacy boundary; no independent corroboration or finding of illegality is claimed.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The patient identifies ChatGPT as already recording at the appointment when they objected to AI note-taking. Under the approved input-privacy boundary, the reported capture itself supplies the relation and consent harm. This does not establish transmission to a server, retention, training, specific captured content, the account type or illegality. The author’s own replies specify that the phone displayed ChatGPT in Chrome, that recording had already begun when the nurse entered, before consent was requested, and that it was disabled only after the author insisted.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"Patient reports a nurse was already recording with ChatGPT when they declined AI notes","summary":"In a public Reddit account, a patient says a nurse asked whether AI could take notes at a medical appointment. After the patient objected, the nurse picked up a phone that the patient described as showing ChatGPT already recording. The patient describes the recording as occurring without prior notice and says their objection was dismissed. In replies, the author says the phone had Chrome open to ChatGPT, that recording had started when the nurse entered the room, before she asked consent, and that the recording was disabled only after the author insisted. This is an uncorroborated first-person account. It does not establish what was captured, whether anything was sent to a server, retained or used for training, or whether a law was broken. The clinic’s location, account type and response are unknown.","incidentDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-02","aiSystem":"ChatGPT on a nurse’s phone, identified by the patient in a public first-person account as already recording at a medical appointment.","aiProduct":"ChatGPT (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_autonomy"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The patient reports loss of control over recording of their medical appointment: the phone was allegedly already recording before consent, their objection was dismissed, and the recording was disabled only after they insisted. No server disclosure or clinical harm is established.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One patient reports their own consent and privacy experience. No other patients, staff or commenters are counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1ww4yn4/today_i_was_radicalized/","primarySourceLabel":"Reddit, 2 October 2026: patient’s account of recording at a medical appointment","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:59.923465+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:43:42.087573+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["privacy","consent","clinical-notes","first-person-account"]},{"id":"2026-openai-ai-support-assistant-refused-chatgpt-pro-refund-requested-minutes-after-renewal-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'my ChatGPT Pro plan renewed for $200'; 'I forgot to cancel beforehand and did not intend to renew'; '13:32:55'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'approximately six minutes after the charge'; 'Tbilisi, UTC+4'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says their ChatGPT Pro plan renewed for $200 on 3 October 2026 after they forgot to cancel, and that they requested a refund in the Help Center about six minutes after the charge.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The AI declined without giving a reason specific to my account'; 'This case is closed. Create a new case to receive support.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The Help Center assistant gave a generic refusal without identifying which eligibility requirement I failed'; 'When I asked for escalation, the case was closed'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The poster says the Help Center AI assistant declined the refund without a reason specific to their account and, when they asked for escalation, the chat showed the case as closed.","causal_attribution":"Poster attributes the refusal to an AI assistant; whether the decision followed fixed policy rules or human configuration is not known."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I opened another case specifically requesting a human billing specialist. Same generic refusal.'; 'another refusal arrived, explicitly marked as generated with AI support'; 'That also received an AI-generated refusal'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A second chat specifically asking for a human produced the same refusal'; 'also received responses explicitly labeled as AI-generated'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The poster says a second chat asking for a human billing specialist produced the same refusal, and that two email requests received refusals marked as AI-generated.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'seven-day discretionary refund policy is conditional, not an automatic entitlement'; 'I still have no explanation specific to my case and no confirmed human review'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'I also explicitly agreed that refunded subscription access would end'; 'I find this an appalling way to treat a paying customer'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster acknowledges that the refund policy is discretionary and conditional, says they agreed that refunded access would end, and says they still had no case-specific explanation or confirmed human review.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."}],"effects":[{"label":"refund of an unwanted $200 renewal refused by an AI support assistant without a case-specific reason (poster's account)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"requests for a human review closed or answered by further AI-generated refusals (poster's account)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1wwjs10/i_requested_a_chatgpt_refund_6_minutes_after_a/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-04: full self-text and the thread's 6 comments (none by the poster), retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID. The attached screenshots were not retrieved. The poster handle is not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-chatgpt-pro-refund-poster"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1wwjyfk/chatgpt_pro_renewal_refund_request_within_minutes/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-04: full self-text and the thread's 15 comments (none by the poster), retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID. Same poster as s1, posted about eleven minutes later and linking s1; not independent.","independence_group":"reddit-chatgpt-pro-refund-poster"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["finance","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Whether the poster was eligible for a refund under OpenAI's discretionary policy, including any usage in the minutes after renewal.","Whether any human reviewed or set the refusals, and whether a later human review or bank chargeback recovered the $200.","Where the poster lives; the timeline is given in Tbilisi time only."],"geography":{"basis":"The poster gives their timeline in Tbilisi time (UTC+4) but does not say where they were or live; no country is recorded.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter's public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of an AI support system refusing a refund and blocking escalation to a human, described with attribution and without corroboration. The poster's handle is not recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-04"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The poster says the Help Center refusals came from an AI assistant and that the email replies were explicitly labelled as generated with AI support; the screenshots they describe were not retrieved. Whether a human reviewed or set the refusal is not known.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","made_decision_about"]},"name":"First-person forum account: a ChatGPT Pro subscriber says OpenAI's AI support assistant refused a refund they requested about six minutes after an unwanted $200 renewal, closed the case when they asked for escalation, and answered further chat and email requests for a human review with more AI-generated refusals","summary":"In public posts to r/ChatGPT and r/OpenAI on 3 October 2026, a person says their ChatGPT Pro subscription renewed for $200 that day after they forgot to cancel, and that they cancelled auto-renewal and requested a refund in OpenAI's Help Center about six minutes after the charge. They say the Help Center's AI assistant declined without giving a reason specific to their account, and that when they asked for escalation the chat showed that the case was closed. A second chat asking specifically for a human billing specialist produced the same refusal, they write, and two email requests, one with five redacted screenshots, received replies marked as generated with AI support. The poster acknowledges that OpenAI's seven-day refund policy is discretionary and conditional, and says the unresolved problem is that they received no case-specific explanation and no confirmed human review. OpenAI's handling is described only by the poster, and the account is uncorroborated.","incidentDate":"2026-10-03","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-03","aiSystem":"OpenAI Help Center AI support assistant (chat) and AI-generated email support replies handling a ChatGPT Pro refund request","aiProduct":"OpenAI Help Center assistant","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The poster says OpenAI's AI support assistant refused a refund of an unwanted $200 ChatGPT Pro renewal that they requested within minutes, closed the case when they asked for escalation, and that further chat and email requests for a human review produced only AI-generated refusals, leaving them without the $200, a case-specific reason or human review (first-person account, uncorroborated).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the poster. A commenter who says they had the same refund problem is not counted. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1wwjs10/i_requested_a_chatgpt_refund_6_minutes_after_a/","primarySourceLabel":"r/ChatGPT, 3 October 2026: \"I requested a ChatGPT refund 6 minutes after a $200 renewal. The AI rejected it and closed the case.\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-04T03:22:06.262385+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-04T03:22:06.262385+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","openai","chatgpt","ai-customer-support","refund","billing","no-human-review","made-decision-about","communicated-with"]},{"id":"2026-characterai-age-verification-judged-adult-user-a-minor-account-locked-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'came back a month ago to verify my age'; 'the AI verification by Persona and the system is severely faulty'; 'adamant on assuming me as a minor'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says they returned to Character.AI about a month before the post to verify their age and that the AI verification by Persona assumed they were a minor, which they say they are not.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account; the poster's age is not documented."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'photos as well but the AI verification system keeps sending the error message'; 'replies from their automated bots'; 'I think it has been more than 5 tickets already'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says they sent ID photos and the verification system kept returning an error, and that more than five support tickets drew only replies from automated bots.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'now the age verification system has locked out from my account'; reply by the poster: 'locking it out on permenent basis'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The poster says the age verification system has locked them out of their account and, in a reply, complains of the system \"locking it out on permenent basis\".","causal_attribution":"Poster attributes the lockout to the AI age verification."}],"effects":[{"label":"adult judged a minor by AI age verification and locked out of their Character.AI account (poster's account)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/CharacterAI/comments/1ww66zl/age_verification/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-03: full self-text, the post's three screenshots and the thread's 4 comments, two of them replies by the poster, retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID and from i.redd.it. The poster handle and the display name visible in a screenshot are not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-characterai-age-verification-poster"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","privacy"],"unknowns":["The exact dates of the verification attempts and the lockout; the post says the poster came back 'a month ago'.","What age the system estimated, the poster's actual age and what the lockout covers. The post's screenshots show the app's profile, library and settings screens still open beneath the age error; the post does not say whether they were taken before the lockout.","Whether Character.AI or Persona has reviewed the tickets."],"geography":{"basis":"The post does not say where the poster lives. Unknown after review.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter's public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of an adult locked out of an account after an AI age check judged them a minor, described with attribution and without corroboration. The poster's handle is not recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-03"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The poster says Character.AI's age verification is an AI verification by Persona and that it repeatedly assumed they were a minor. The post's three screenshots show the app's \"Unable to verify age\" error with a prompt to contact support; they show no age estimate, no vendor name and no lockout notice. No company statement was published.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"First-person forum account: a long-time Character.AI user who says they are an adult says the app's AI age verification, run through Persona, kept judging them a minor despite ID photos, answered more than five support tickets only with automated replies, and locked them out of their account","summary":"In a public post to r/CharacterAI at 21:47 UTC on 2 October 2026, a person who describes themselves as a veteran user of the Character.AI app says they returned about a month earlier to verify their age, and that the AI verification by Persona assumed they were a minor although they are not. They say they sent photos of their ID, tried desktop and different lighting, and kept getting an error message; that more than five support tickets asking for manual verification drew only replies from automated bots; and that the age verification system has now locked them out of their account. In a reply they say the system should identify people properly instead of \"locking it out on permenent basis\". A commenter says the same check called them underage. The account is uncorroborated, and Character.AI's and Persona's handling is described only by the poster.","incidentDate":"2026-09-02","incidentEndDate":"2026-10-02","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-02","aiSystem":"Character.AI's age verification, which the poster says is an AI verification run through Persona, plus automated support replies to the poster's tickets","aiProduct":"Character.AI age verification","aiCompany":"Character.AI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The poster says Character.AI's AI age verification through Persona wrongly judged them a minor, that support tickets drew only automated replies, and that the system locked them out of their account (first-person account, uncorroborated).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the poster. A commenter who says the check also called them underage gives no further detail and is not counted. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"companion","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/CharacterAI/comments/1ww66zl/age_verification/","primarySourceLabel":"r/CharacterAI, 2 October 2026: \"Age verification\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-03T03:17:17.653606+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-03T03:17:17.653606+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","character-ai","persona","age-verification","age-estimation","account-lockout","automated-support","made-decision-about"]},{"id":"2026-turnitin-ai-checker-marks-ap-research-student-annotations-100-percent-ai-teacher-accusation-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'i am currently taking ap research, and today my teacher told me that my source annotations were found to be'; '100% ai'; 'from turnitin'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student says that on the day of the post their teacher told them their AP Research source annotations had been found to be '100% ai' by Turnitin.","causal_attribution":"Student's account of what the teacher said; the detector report was not published."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'i did not use ai nor would i have to for writing ANNOTATIONS'; 'my document history shows me typing over the course of an hour'; 'some of the sentences in my annotations i pulled nearly identical to my notes written beforehand'; 'i have taken a research course with the same rigor and writing assignment requirements with this teacher the year before, and have never in my life been faced with ai accusations'; 'we also had to do an assignment before the annotations where we bullet notes, facts, and general statistics we plan to write about'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student says they did not use AI, that their document history shows them typing over the course of an hour, that some sentences closely follow notes written beforehand for a class assignment, and that they faced no AI accusation in a research course with the same teacher the previous year.","causal_attribution":"Student's own account; the document history was not published, and one commenter doubted the account."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'my teacher told me that the feedback from turnitin ai checker never ends up being a false accusation'; 'my teacher told me we would talk about it at a later time'; 'my teacher is showing no sign of going against the turnitin ai checker'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student says the teacher said Turnitin's AI checker feedback never ends up being a false accusation, said they would talk about it later, and showed no sign of going against the checker.","causal_attribution":"Student's account of the teacher's statements."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'it honestly makes me really upset'; 'how would i even defend myself'; reply by the poster: 'i feel so insulted'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student says the accusation makes them really upset, that they feel insulted, and that they do not know how to defend themselves.","causal_attribution":"Student's own statement of the effect."}],"effects":[{"label":"accused by a teacher of AI use after a reported Turnitin AI-checker result of 100% AI on source annotations, which the student disputes (poster's account)","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"distress and uncertainty about how to answer the accusation (poster's account)","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/1wumzxm/teacher_accusing_me_of_ai/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-01: full self-text and the thread's 6 comments retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID. The poster handle is not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-ap-research-student"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education"],"unknowns":["The local date: the post says 'today' and was published at 01:46 UTC on 1 October 2026, which is 30 September or 1 October depending on the student's time zone.","The student's age, school and country.","What the Turnitin report showed and how the teacher used it.","Whether the result affected the student's grade or led to any academic-integrity process."],"geography":{"basis":"The post names no school, place or country, and the course name is not used to infer one. Unknown after review.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter's public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of a student accused of AI use on the strength of a reported AI-detector result, described with attribution and without corroboration. The student may be a minor, so no handle, school or place is recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-01"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The student reports that the teacher attributed a '100% ai' result on the student's annotations to Turnitin's AI checker; the report was not published. The relation recorded is the detector's reported claim about the authorship of the student's work, which the teacher relied on.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"First-person forum account: a student in an AP Research course says their teacher reported that Turnitin's AI checker found their source annotations '100% AI' and said the checker never gives false accusations; the student says they wrote the work themselves and can show document history","summary":"In a public post to r/ApplyingToCollege early on 1 October 2026 (UTC), a student taking the Advanced Placement (AP) Research course writes that their teacher told them that day that their source annotations had been found to be '100% ai' by Turnitin. The student says they did not use AI. They say their document history shows them typing over the course of an hour and that some sentences closely follow notes they wrote for an earlier assignment. They also say they had faced no AI accusation in a research course with the same teacher the year before. By the student's account, the teacher said the matter would be discussed later and that Turnitin's AI checker feedback never ends up being a false accusation. The student says the accusation leaves them upset and unsure how to defend themselves. No grade or disciplinary outcome is reported. The account is uncorroborated, and one commenter doubted it.","incidentDate":"2026-09-30","incidentEndDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-01","aiSystem":"Turnitin's AI-writing detection ('turnitin ai checker' in the student's words), named by the teacher who reported its result to the student; the report itself was not published","aiProduct":"Turnitin AI-text detector (reported)","aiCompany":"Turnitin","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A student reports that a teacher accused them of AI use on the strength of a Turnitin AI-checker result of '100% AI' on their source annotations, which the student disputes, and says the accusation leaves them upset and unsure how to defend themselves (first-person account, uncorroborated).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the student whose work the detector result concerned and who reports the accusation and its effect. The student did not use the detector, so they are counted among people harmed through institutional use. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/1wumzxm/teacher_accusing_me_of_ai/","primarySourceLabel":"r/ApplyingToCollege, 1 October 2026: \"teacher accusing me of ai\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-01T03:11:50.19209+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-01T03:11:50.19209+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","turnitin","ai-text-detector","academic-integrity","education","false-positive-alleged","made-claim-about"]},{"id":"2026-us-uk-hachette-cancels-shy-girl-novel-after-ai-authorship-allegations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The Hachette Book Group said Thursday that it has canceled the publication of horror novel","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"where it was first released in November.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The US release of a horror novel has been cancelled by its publisher over concerns that AI was used to help write it.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Wildfire (in the UK) have decided to no longer continue publishing their edition","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The title has also been removed from online retailers including Amazon","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"But it took until last Thursday for Hachette to pull the book from its website","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"March 19 , the New York Times landed a big story about allegations that a hyped horror novel called Shy Girl","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Hachette Book Group said on Thursday 19 March 2026 that it had cancelled the US publication of the horror novel Shy Girl by Mia Ballard (Orbit imprint) and would not continue the UK edition (Wildfire imprint, first released in November 2025). The Guardian reports the title was also removed from online retailers including Amazon.","causal_attribution":"The cancellation is Hachette’s own announcement, relayed by several outlets. Sources link it to allegations of AI use and to a review by the publisher. Whether AI was in fact used is unresolved (claim c7)."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"readers on platforms such as Goodreads and Reddit had questioned whether sections of the text bore hallmarks of AI-generated prose.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"A widely shared Reddit thread drew hundreds of comments","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"amassed more than 1.2m views","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"one reviewer on the GoodReads website claimed the book appeared to be \"written by ChatGPT\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"In January, a Reddit post from a user who claimed to be a book editor generated significant discussion around","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"published online on January 19 by","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Readers alleged online that the novel’s text read as AI-generated: reviews on Goodreads, a widely shared Reddit thread, a January Reddit post by a user who said they were a book editor, and a YouTube video posted in January 2026 that had more than 1.2 million views.","causal_attribution":"Online opinion and analysis by readers. It is not evidence about who produced the text. Sources differ on when the earliest accusations appeared (see unknowns)."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"78.4 percent of the document is AI Generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"I soon confirmed this with two other services.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"Originality and GPTZero","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"found evidence that 78 percent of the book is AI-generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"that large parts of Shy Girl appeared to show patterns characteristic of A.I.-generated writing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"to use these reports only for guidance, not as proof of guilt","relation":"context","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"A.I. detection software, while improving, has been shown to be fallible at best","relation":"context","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"AI-detection results were reported as part of the case. A publishing consultant’s first-person account says a copy of the UK edition scored 78.4 percent AI-generated on the Pangram detector, that two other detection services gave confirming results, and that the consultant brought the findings to the New York Times. Futurism reports that the CEO of Pangram ran a test and found evidence that 78 percent of the book is AI-generated. Slate reports that the New York Times verified claims that large parts of the book appeared to show patterns characteristic of AI-generated writing.","causal_attribution":"Detector scores describe statistical patterns in a text. They do not establish who produced the text or whether a generative model was used. Detector reliability is contested in the sources, and the New York Times article that carried the verification was not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"following an investigation into the origins of the book.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the publisher confirmed it had halted publication after an internal review.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Although the publisher claimed the decision came after a thorough review of the text","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"lengthy investigation in recent weeks","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"remains committed to protecting original creative expression and storytelling","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Hachette said its decision followed a review or investigation of the book and cited its commitment to protecting original creative expression and storytelling. The Wall Street Journal report says the cancellation followed an investigation into the origins of the book, and Futurism relays a Hachette statement to the Journal that both its US and UK imprints conducted a lengthy investigation in recent weeks.","causal_attribution":"Publisher statements about its own process. The sources inspected do not report what the review or investigation found about AI use."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"concerns the day before the announcement.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"shortly after the New York Times approached the publisher with evidence of AI use.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"one Times article said that Hachette pulled the book within a day of first notification by the Times","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The New York Times asked Hachette about the AI concerns the day before the announcement, and the cancellation followed shortly after the Times approached the publisher with evidence of AI use. A consultant’s first-person account says a Times article reported that Hachette pulled the book within a day of first notification by the Times.","causal_attribution":"Timing reported by outlets that rely on the New York Times report, which was not read directly. The sequence shows what preceded the announcement and does not show what Hachette concluded."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"has denied using AI to write the book","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"hired to edit the original self-published version of the novel had used AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"my mental health is at an all time low and my name is ruined for something I didn","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Ballard has denied personally using AI to write the novel.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"my mental health is at an all time low and my name is ruined for something I didn","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"pursuing legal action","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"did not personally use AI","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"please do your research on editors before trusting them with your work","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"}],"assertion":"Ballard denied personally using AI to write the novel in an email to the New York Times and, per The Independent, in an email to the Wall Street Journal, and told the New York Times that an acquaintance hired to edit the original self-published version had used AI. Ballard wrote: \"This controversy has changed my life in many ways and my mental health is at an all time low and my name is ruined for something I didn’t even personally do\", and said legal action was being pursued.","causal_attribution":"The author’s own statements about the author’s own conduct and its effects. Ballard spoke publicly under that name in emails to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal quoted by several outlets. The acquaintance is not named in the sources and no response from that person is reported."},{"id":"c7","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"found evidence that 78 percent of the book is AI-generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"78.4 percent of the document is AI Generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"has denied using AI to write the book","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A.I. detection software, while improving, has been shown to be fallible at best","relation":"context","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"Whether, by whom and to what extent generative AI produced the text of the published novel is disputed. Detector results and reader analyses point to substantial AI-generated prose. Ballard denies personal use and attributes any AI use to a hired editor. No source inspected reports the editor’s account, an independent verification of authorship, or a finding by the publisher.","causal_attribution":"Causal attribution of the consequence to AI use rests on allegations and detector output that the author disputes. The consequence (cancellation) is a publisher decision responding to those allegations."}],"effects":[{"label":"Publisher cancelled the US edition and discontinued the UK edition of the author’s novel after allegations that it was AI-generated","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Author reports damage to name and severely worsened mental health after the controversy","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.wsj.com/business/media/publisher-pulls-shy-girl-horror-novel-after-ai-allegations-c7944702","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"wsj-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y9d44jj24o","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/mar/20/hachette-horror-novel-shy-girl-suspected-ai-use-mia-ballard","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/21/publisher-pulls-horror-novel-shy-girl-over-ai-concerns","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/novel-pulled-author-accused-ai","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://slate.com/culture/2026/03/shy-girl-mia-ballard-novel-a-i-book-horror-reddit-hachette-canceled.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"slate-shy-girl-reporting"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://thewalrus.ca/new-york-times-ai-generated-shy-girl-mia-ballard/","kind":"first_person_account","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"consultant-first-person-account"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/100037-while-ai-discourse-rages-publishing-has-more-questions-than-answers.html","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://www.aol.com/articles/horror-novel-reportedly-pulled-publication-133355085.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"wsj-shy-girl-report"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Whether generative AI produced any of the text, who used it and to what extent is unresolved. The author denies personal use and attributes any AI use to a hired editor. No source inspected reports that editor’s account, an independent authorship check, or what Hachette found.","The Wall Street Journal page was read as a truncated Wayback extract (three paragraphs, paywall). The New York Times article that first reported the story could not be read (HTTP 403 live and in Wayback captures). Statements attributed to the Times are read through BBC, The Guardian, TechCrunch, Futurism and Publishers Weekly.","Sources differ on when the first online accusations appeared. The Guardian says questions began in early 2026, and Futurism dates a Reddit post to January. Futurism also says accusations have swirled around the book since its self-published run last year, Slate says the rumblings began in January and even earlier, and a first-person account by a publishing consultant says the first accusations appeared online five or six months before Hachette’s July 2025 acquisition announcement and that a Reddit thread was a year old in early February 2026. No inspected source reports a consequence for the author from those earlier accusations. This record dates the event to the publisher’s decision on 19 March 2026, the first reported consequence for the author.","Detector reliability and the tested copy are contested. A Wall Street Journal opinion column on the reliability of the Pangram report was not read, and a summary of it on Wikipedia is not cited.","The author says legal action is being pursued. The target and any filing are not established by the sources inspected. A newsletter’s report of a $1 million lawsuit against Hachette had no filing or second source and is not relied on.","The US publication date is reported differently (April in BBC and Slate, 19 May in the Wall Street Journal). UK sales are reported as about 1,800 (Guardian, citing NielsenIQ) and almost 2,000 (BBC) copies. Neither is used as a harm count.","Whether existing UK copies were withdrawn or destroyed is not consistently reported. The Guardian says the title was removed from online retailers and would no longer be distributed in the UK.","The accusers on Reddit and YouTube, the consultant and the hired editor are not described individually beyond their role in the reporting."],"geography":{"basis":"Hachette cancelled the US release and discontinued the UK edition (BBC). The BBC describes the author as a US author, and The Independent, citing a Google Books author profile, reports a US residence. No court is involved in the sources inspected.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US","GB"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The publisher’s cancellation, its stated review, the online allegations, the AI-detector results and the author’s denial were read from the Wall Street Journal (truncated), BBC, The Guardian, TechCrunch, Futurism, Slate, Publishers Weekly, The Independent (via AOL) and a consultant’s first-person account. The author is named because the author spoke publicly under that name in emails to two newspapers. Every AI-related claim is attributed and AI involvement is recorded as disputed. The event is dated to the publisher’s decision on 19 March 2026, the first reported consequence for the author. Earlier reader accusations are recorded as context.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"AI-text detectors (Pangram, and per one first-person account Originality and GPTZero) scored the UK edition as largely AI-generated, and readers alleged the prose showed hallmarks of AI. The author denies personally using AI and says an acquaintance hired to edit the self-published version used it. Hachette cited a review of the text and its stance on original creative expression and did not state, in the sources inspected, what the review found. Detector reliability is contested.","status":"disputed"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"US and UK: Hachette cancels the US edition of the novel Shy Girl and discontinues the UK edition after allegations it was AI-generated, with the author denying personal use of AI","summary":"On 19 March 2026 Hachette Book Group said it had cancelled the US publication of the horror novel Shy Girl by Mia Ballard (Orbit imprint) and would not continue the UK edition (Wildfire imprint, first released in November 2025). Reports say the decision followed an investigation by Hachette and came a day after the New York Times asked the publisher about online allegations that the text was largely AI-generated. The allegations came from readers on Goodreads, Reddit and YouTube and from AI-detector results, including a 78.4 percent AI-generated score on the Pangram detector that a publishing consultant says two other services confirmed. Ballard denied personally using AI in emails to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and told the New York Times that an acquaintance hired to edit the original self-published version used AI. Ballard wrote that \"my name is ruined\" and \"my mental health is at an all time low\", and said legal action was being pursued. Hachette’s public statements cite its commitment to original creative expression. The sources inspected do not report what its investigation found. Whether AI generated any of the text, and who used it, is unresolved.","incidentDate":"2026-03-19","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-19","aiSystem":"Alleged generative-AI text production in the novel (the author denies personal use and attributes any AI use to a hired editor), and AI-text detectors (Pangram, and per one account Originality and GPTZero) whose scores were used to allege AI authorship","aiProduct":"Pangram AI-text detector","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"disputed","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Hachette cancelled the US publication and discontinued the UK edition of the author’s novel. The author wrote to the New York Times that \"my mental health is at an all time low and my name is ruined for something I didn’t even personally do\" (relayed by BBC and The Guardian). The author denies personally using AI.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the author, reports harm (cancelled publication, damage to name and severely worsened mental health). The hired editor, readers who bought the book and the publisher are not counted as harmed persons.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/mar/20/hachette-horror-novel-shy-girl-suspected-ai-use-mia-ballard","primarySourceLabel":"The Guardian (20 Mar 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:16:09.707267+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:57.941496+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]}]}