{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-22T10:15:02.863Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"reputation","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"unknown","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":6,"coverage":{"cases":6,"countries":3,"languages":4,"unknownLocation":3,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":1,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":6,"relationPending":2,"relationUnknown":4},"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-hohhot-photography-competition-revokes-first-prize-after-organiser-confirms-winning-image-was-ai-generated","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The photo depicts three sanitation workers resting and laughing on a bench ... contains obviously garbled characters, a detail that prompted widespread suspicion of AI use and raised public doubts about the fairness of judging. Many also noted the unnatural sunlight and matching faces and expressions of the three figures","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The first-place image in a Hohhot photography competition, showing three sanitation workers on a bench, drew public suspicion of AI use over garbled vest text, unnatural sunlight and matching faces.","causal_attribution":"China Daily."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"After an investigation, Hohhot's federation of literary and art circles, an organizer of the competition, responded to the doubt via a notice on Tuesday, confirming that the photo had been created using AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"经核实，该作品确系AI生成，非作者实景原创拍摄。","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"After an investigation, Hohhot's federation of literary and art circles, the competition's organiser, said in a notice of 14 July 2026 that it had verified the winning work was AI-generated and not the entrant's own on-site photograph.","causal_attribution":"The organiser's notice as reported by China Daily."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"It then revoked the work's eligibility for all online and offline competitions, evaluations, and exhibitions, excluded it from official archives, and canceled its award and recognition ... The event itself was also suspended for a comprehensive rectification review. Those accountable were held responsible in accordance with relevant regulations.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"取消该作品线上和线下参赛、参评及参展资格，撤销其一切赛事相关认定，不纳入赛事成果收录范围；暂停“艺韵北疆·光影青城”呼和浩特全民摄影双月赛，推进全面整改；对相关责任人将依据有关规定予以处理。","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The organiser revoked the work's eligibility for competitions, evaluations and exhibitions, excluded it from the competition's record of results and cancelled its award; it suspended the competition for rectification and said those responsible would be dealt with under the relevant rules.","causal_attribution":"The organiser's notice as quoted by People's Daily Online and reported by China Daily; China Daily's wording that those accountable 'were held responsible' is stronger than the notice's future tense."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"此事暴露出工作中存在赛事审核把关不严、评选标准界定不准等问题","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The organiser's notice said the case exposed lax vetting of entries and imprecise judging criteria in its own work.","causal_attribution":"The organiser's notice as quoted by People's Daily Online."}],"effects":[{"label":"the winning entry's first prize was cancelled and the work barred from competitions, exhibitions and archives after the organiser confirmed it was AI-made","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202607/15/WS6a574bcca310986e2b4656af.html","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-19; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the article. China Daily, 15 July 2026, by Chen Meiling and Yuan Hui. The organiser's notice, the competition rules and the winning image were not inspected; their content is as China Daily describes it.","independence_group":"hohhot-federation-notice"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://m.gmw.cn/2026-07/14/content_1304532389.htm","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in Chinese by the verifier (an AI research agent) on 2026-10-19 and translated by it; no human translator or reviewer. Guangming Online page carrying a People's Daily Online Inner Mongolia report of 14 July 2026 that quotes the Hohhot federation's notice.","independence_group":"hohhot-federation-notice"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Who the entrant was and whether the entrant made or knew of the AI generation.","Which AI tool was used.","What the competition rules said about AI.","Who was held responsible and how."],"geography":{"basis":"China Daily reports the competition was held in Hohhot, Inner Mongolia autonomous region, and was open to local residents; the entrant's own location is not stated. No court proceeding is reported.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["CN"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a sanction for AI use: China Daily reports that the organiser of a Hohhot photography competition confirmed after an investigation that the winning photo was AI-generated and cancelled its first prize. The entrant's account is not reported and the record rests on the organiser's notice as reported by China Daily and quoted by People's Daily Online.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is a competition organiser's sanction in response to AI use. China Daily reports that Hohhot's federation of literary and art circles, after an investigation, confirmed in a notice that the winning photo had been created using AI, and then cancelled the award. The technical basis of the organiser's finding is not reported, and no source describes an AI system producing output about the entrant, so the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Hohhot: photography competition revokes its first prize after the organiser confirms the winning image was AI-generated, China Daily reports","summary":"China Daily reported on 15 July 2026 that the first prize in a local photography competition in Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, had been revoked after the image was found to be AI-generated. Online users had pointed to garbled characters on the workers' vests, unnatural sunlight and matching faces in the winning photo of three sanitation workers. After an investigation, the city's federation of literary and art circles, one of the organisers, confirmed in a notice on Tuesday 14 July that the photo had been created using AI, cancelled its award and barred the work from competitions, evaluations, exhibitions and official archives. The competition was suspended for rectification; the notice said those responsible would be dealt with under the relevant rules and that the case exposed lax vetting and imprecise judging criteria. The entrant is not named, and who generated the image is not stated.","incidentDate":"2026-07-14","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-07-15","aiSystem":"An unidentified AI image tool that, according to the organiser's notice as reported by China Daily, was used to create the winning photograph","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm","other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to China Daily, the organiser of a Hohhot photography competition cancelled the winning entry's first prize and barred the work from competitions, exhibitions and archives after confirming the image was created with AI.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person is counted: the entrant whose first prize was cancelled (China Daily, citing the organiser's notice). Counted outside own use because the report does not say who generated the image. Those 'held responsible' are not counted because the report does not say who they were or what happened to them.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202607/15/WS6a574bcca310986e2b4656af.html","primarySourceLabel":"China Daily, 15 July 2026: Hohhot photography prize revoked after winning image found to be AI-generated","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-19T03:16:41.41756+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-19T03:16:41.41756+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-generated-image","photography-competition","award-revoked","china","consequential-response"]},{"id":"2025-maastricht-university-ai-fraud-sanction-over-nonexistent-sources-upheld-by-dutch-council-of-state","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Bij beslissing van 11 december 2025 heeft de examencommissie zich op het standpunt gesteld dat'; 'ongeoorloofd gebruik gemaakt van kunstmatige intelligentie (hierna: AI)'; 'houdt in dat er een formele waarschuwing wordt opgenomen in haar studentendossier, dat alle toetsonderdelen van het vak ongeldig worden verklaard'; 'niet mag deelnemen aan de herkansing van het vak'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 11 December 2025 the examination board found that the student had committed fraud in a weekly assignment and had made unauthorised use of AI, and imposed a formal warning in her student file, invalidation of all assessment components of the course and exclusion from the resit.","causal_attribution":"Recorded in the Council of State's ruling."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'de verdenking van fraude ziet op het gebruik van AI in drie van de vier bronnen bij de opdracht'; 'weergegeven bronnen bestaan niet en de manier waarop deze zijn opgenomen in de opdracht duidt op het gebruik van AI'; 'Er is geen technische analyse verricht, er is geen AI-detectietool ingezet'; 'omdat het onderzoek naar de vermeende fraude niet met behulp van technische middelen is verricht'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The examination board based the finding on three of four cited sources that named a different journal or edition, year, incomplete title or page numbers from existing articles; it said the sources did not exist and that the way they were included pointed to the use of AI. The Council of State's ruling records that the investigation was not carried out with technical means; the student argued that no technical analysis or AI-detection tool was used.","causal_attribution":"The board's reasoning and the absence of a detection tool are recorded in the ruling; the AI use itself is the board's inference."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Verder is nooit aan haar gevraagd of zij gebruik heeft gemaakt van AI.'; 'heeft de opdracht afgerond in tijdnood en haar internetverbinding was op dat moment slecht.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student argued that she was never asked whether she had used AI and that she completed the assignment under time pressure with a poor internet connection, relying on memory and notes.","causal_attribution":"The ruling documents that the student made these arguments, not their truth."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'De examencommissie heeft met hoge waarschijnlijkheid aangetoond dat het ingediende werk door kunstmatige intelligentie is gegenereerd.'; 'Bij beslissing van 5 maart 2026 heeft het CBE het door'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 5 March 2026 the university's examination appeals board rejected her appeal, holding that the examination board had shown with high probability that the work was AI-generated.","causal_attribution":"Recorded in the ruling."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Datum uitspraak: 12 augustus 2026'; 'verklaart het beroep ongegrond;'; 'wijst het verzoek om schadevergoeding af.'; 'Door de beschuldiging en de aantekening leidt zij reputatieschade en psychische schade.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 12 August 2026 the Council of State dismissed her appeal and her claim for damages, in which she said the accusation and the note in her file caused her reputational and psychological harm.","causal_attribution":"The dismissal is documented; the reputational and psychological harm is the student's claim as recorded in the ruling."}],"effects":[{"label":"formal fraud warning, invalidation of all course assessments and exclusion from the resit","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"appeal and damages claim dismissed by the Council of State","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in full in Dutch and translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translation.","independence_group":"raad-van-state-ecli-nl-rvs-2026-4720"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["education","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether the student used an AI tool, and which one.","When the assignment was submitted; the ruling dates only the examination board's decision."],"geography":{"basis":"The assignment, sanction and appeals concern Maastricht University and the Council of State in the Netherlands, as the ruling states. The student's own country is not stated; the use of an interpreter at the hearing does not establish it.","court_countries":["NL"],"event_countries":["NL"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as an institution's consequential response to suspected AI use: Maastricht University sanctioned a student for fraud after attributing non-existent sources to AI without a detection tool, and the Dutch Council of State upheld the sanction and rejected her damages claim. The facts rest on the published ruling.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the university's sanction for suspected AI use: its examination board concluded from non-existent and garbled citations in three of four sources that the student had made unauthorised use of AI and imposed a formal warning, invalidated the course's assessments and excluded her from the resit, and the Council of State upheld that decision on 12 August 2026. No detection tool or technical analysis was used and the student offered a different explanation, so AI use is recorded as suspected and the relation as unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Dutch Council of State upholds Maastricht University fraud sanction on a law student whose assignment cited non-existent sources the university attributed to AI","summary":"On 11 December 2025 an examination board at Maastricht University found that a European Law School student had committed fraud in a weekly assignment whose purpose was to find and correctly cite legal sources. The board said three of the four sources contained wrong journals, years, titles and page numbers, that the sources did not exist, and that the way they were included pointed to the use of AI; it concluded the student had made unauthorised use of AI. The sanction was a formal warning in the student's file, invalidation of all assessment components of the course and exclusion from the resit. The student argued that no technical analysis or AI-detection tool had been used, that she was never asked whether she had used AI, and that the errors came from completing the work in a hurry from memory and notes with a poor internet connection. The university's examination appeals board rejected her appeal on 5 March 2026, and on 12 August 2026 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State dismissed her further appeal and her claim for damages for reputational and psychological harm.","incidentDate":"2025-12-11","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-08-12","aiSystem":"No AI tool is named. The examination board inferred from non-existent and garbled source citations that the assignment had been generated with AI; no detection tool or technical analysis was used","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The student received a formal fraud warning in her file, had all assessment components of the course invalidated and was excluded from the resit after the university attributed non-existent sources to AI; the Council of State upheld the sanction and rejected her claim of reputational and psychological harm (ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One sanctioned student (ruling). She is counted under other people harmed because her use of AI is the university's inference and is not established.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"NL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720","primarySourceLabel":"Council of State (Netherlands), ruling ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720, case 202601147/1/A2, 12 August 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:11:28.361182+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:11:28.361182+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-use-accusation","academic-integrity","education","fabricated-sources","sanction-upheld","ai-involvement-suspected"]},{"id":"2026-india-supreme-court-rebukes-lawyer-who-blamed-clients-for-filing-alleged-ai-generated-non-existent-judgments","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'On behalf of the appellants, a compilation of judgments was placed on record to which the respondents raised immediate serious objection.'; 'According to them, the compilation was replete with AI generated non-'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'According to them, the compilation was replete with AI generated non-existent judgments,\" the Court recorded.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"During the hearing, the respondents objected that a compilation of judgments placed on record for the appellants was replete with AI-generated non-existent judgments.","causal_attribution":"The judgment documents that the respondents made this objection. Whether the judgments were AI-generated or non-existent is the respondents' claim and is not found by the Court."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'appellants, facing the Court’s query, sought to shift'; 'the entire blame on the appellants while at the same time feigning ignorance of what the compilation contained.'; 'sought to take the blame on himself and prayed for forgiveness on behalf of the appellants.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The senior counsel appearing for the appellants subsequently accepted responsibility and sought forgiveness on their behalf.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"When questioned by the Court, the appellants' advocate-on-record sought to shift the entire blame onto the appellants while feigning ignorance of what the compilation contained; the appellants' senior counsel then took the blame on himself and prayed for forgiveness on their behalf.","causal_attribution":"Recorded by the Court in its judgment."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Exemplary costs were proposed to be imposed while coming down heavily on the appellants.'; 'It is for such reason that the order requiring payment of costs has been deleted by “no order as to costs”.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'However, it Court ultimately refrained from imposing costs after being informed of the death of the first appellant'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Court proposed exemplary costs against the appellants over the incident and later deleted the direction to pay costs after being informed of the first appellant's death; it made no order as to costs.","causal_attribution":"Recorded by the Court in its judgment."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judgment did not identify the allegedly fabricated decisions or record a separate finding that particular judgments had been generated using AI.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judgment does not identify the allegedly fabricated decisions or record a separate finding that particular judgments were AI-generated.","causal_attribution":"Bar and Bench's reading of the judgment; consistent with paragraph 74, which records the objection as the respondents' claim."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Court dismissed both appeals, upheld the NCLT orders as affirmed by the NCLAT, and directed that the insolvency resolution processes concerning both companies proceed in accordance with law.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'this Court finds no merit in either of these appeals and are, therefore dismissed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Court dismissed both appeals on their merits and upheld the insolvency proceedings against the two hotel-operating companies.","causal_attribution":"The merits outcome is unrelated to the compilation; recorded as context."}],"effects":[{"label":"advocate-on-record criticised in a Supreme Court judgment for shifting blame onto the clients over the disputed compilation","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"exemplary costs proposed against the appellants, later deleted","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2026-10-15/xlwz6h1p/Deepak_Raheja_Vs_Omkara.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full (50 pages, text extracted from the PDF); the AI incident is in paragraph 74.","independence_group":"india-supreme-court-judgment-15-oct-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-laments-lawyer-blaming-client-for-ai-generated-fake-judgments","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full. A report of the judgment, so it shares the judgment's independence group.","independence_group":"india-supreme-court-judgment-15-oct-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://courtbook.in/posts/supreme-court-criticises-lawyer-for-blaming-client-over-ai-generated-fake-judgments","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full. A report of the judgment, so it shares the judgment's independence group.","independence_group":"india-supreme-court-judgment-15-oct-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which judgments in the compilation were disputed and whether they exist.","Whether an AI tool was used to prepare the compilation, which tool, and by whom.","The date of the hearing at which the objection was raised.","Whether any disciplinary step against the advocate-on-record followed."],"geography":{"basis":"The hearing and the judgment took place in the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi, as the judgment states. The lawyers' and appellants' own countries are not stated.","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a court's consequential response to alleged AI use in a filing: the Supreme Court of India recorded the opposing side's objection that a compilation was full of AI-generated non-existent judgments, criticised the filing advocate-on-record for blaming the clients, and proposed exemplary costs that it later deleted. The facts rest on the judgment itself; the AI generation remains the respondents' claim.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the Supreme Court's response to alleged AI use in a filing: the respondents objected that a compilation of judgments filed for the appellants was replete with AI-generated non-existent judgments, the Court questioned the appellants' lawyers about it, criticised the advocate-on-record in its judgment for shifting the blame onto the clients, and proposed exemplary costs that it later deleted. The Court did not rely on the disputed judgments and made no finding that they were AI-generated, and no source names a tool or says who prepared the compilation, so the relation is recorded as unknown under the consequential-response exemption and the AI involvement as suspected.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"India Supreme Court rebukes lawyer who blamed the clients for a filing that the other side said was full of AI-generated non-existent judgments","summary":"In a judgment of 15 October 2026 dismissing two appeals against insolvency proceedings concerning two hotel-operating companies, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India recorded that during the hearing the appellants' side had placed on record a compilation of judgments which, according to the respondents, was replete with AI-generated non-existent judgments. The Court recorded that the appellants' advocate-on-record, when questioned, sought to shift the entire blame onto the appellants while feigning ignorance of what the compilation contained, and that the appellants' senior counsel then took the blame on himself and prayed for forgiveness on their behalf. The Court had proposed exemplary costs against the appellants over the incident but deleted that direction after being told that the first appellant had died. The judgment does not identify the disputed judgments, does not make its own finding that they were AI-generated, and does not name any AI tool.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-15","aiSystem":"No AI tool is named. The respondents said that a compilation of judgments filed for the appellants was replete with AI-generated non-existent judgments; the Court recorded that objection and made no separate finding","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Supreme Court criticised the appellants' advocate-on-record in a reportable judgment for shifting blame onto the clients over a compilation the respondents said contained AI-generated non-existent judgments; exemplary costs proposed against the appellants were later deleted (judgment, 15 October 2026).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The judgment criticises one advocate-on-record by role, so 1 is a documented minimum. The appellants faced proposed exemplary costs that were deleted; they are not counted because no consequence to them was carried out, and the number of people behind the appellants is not stated. Whoever used AI, if anyone, is not established, so no one is counted as a direct AI user.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2026-10-15/xlwz6h1p/Deepak_Raheja_Vs_Omkara.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Supreme Court of India, judgment in Civil Appeal No. 12195 of 2025 (2026 INSC 1134), 15 October 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:01:30.734181+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:01:30.734181+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["alleged-ai-generated-judgments","court-rebuke","lawyer-conduct","supreme-court-of-india","ai-involvement-suspected"]},{"id":"2026-nikon-microscopy-video-contest-winner-disqualified-under-generative-ai-rules","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Nikon has determined that the winning video did not comply with the competition rules regarding generative AI. Nikon has adjusted the competition rankings to reflect this decision,” a Nikon spokesperson tells PetaPixel.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Nikon has determined that the winning video did not comply with the competition rules regarding generative AI,” Nikon Instruments Inc. posted in a statement.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'After thoroughly re-evaluating the video and supporting materials and consulting with members of our judging panel, Nikon has determined that the winning video did not comply with the competition rules regarding generative AI. Nikon has adjusted the competition rankings on our website to reflect this decision.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Nikon said that after re-evaluating the video and supporting materials and consulting its judging panel it had determined that the winning video did not comply with the competition rules regarding generative AI, and it adjusted the rankings.","causal_attribution":"Nikon's own statement of its decision, relayed by three outlets; the statement on Nikon's site was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'had acknowledged using AI, but said he believed he had followed the rules, and had cooperated with Nikon's investigation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"BBC Newsround reported that the entrant had acknowledged using AI but said he believed he had followed the rules and had cooperated with Nikon's investigation.","causal_attribution":"The entrant's account as reported by the BBC; his own statement was not inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'said he used AI “to distinguish and visualize features in the reconstructed grayscale images”; however, he denied that AI was used “to generate the experimental movie, the cilia, or their motion.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Ars Technica, citing a BBC report, said the entrant described using AI to distinguish and visualise features in reconstructed grayscale images and denied that AI was used to generate the movie, the cilia or their motion.","causal_attribution":"The entrant's explanation relayed second-hand; it contradicts the critics' view that the video was generated."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'“purple structures pop in and out of existence” and “green cilia also appear from nowhere and do not match the known size.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'I knew immediately that the video was AI generated and put my reputation on the line by being the first to publicly say so on LinkedIn.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Scientists publicly said the video did not appear to show real cilia, one saying structures appear from nowhere and another saying he knew immediately that the video was AI generated.","causal_attribution":"Two different scientists' public statements, reported by two outlets; neither establishes how the video was made."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'“this particular use of AI—as a tool for enhancement of microscopy-generated source data, not for image generation from scratch—to be in compliance with the rules set forth by the competition”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"According to The Scientist, Nikon had earlier said that the entrant's use of AI, as a tool to enhance microscopy-generated source data, complied with the competition rules.","causal_attribution":"Nikon's earlier position as quoted by The Scientist, later reversed by its decision."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The winner of the Nikon Small World in Motion competition is under investigation after scientists accused'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"PetaPixel reported on 1 October 2026 that the winner of the competition was under investigation after scientists accused the entrant of using AI.","causal_attribution":"Dates the review that preceded the decision."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It should not be interpreted as a judgment of the entrant’s professional reputation, scientific contributions, or intent.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'This decision is based solely on the submitted video’s eligibility under the rules outlined for this competition. It should not be interpreted as a judgment of the entrant’s professional reputation, scientific contributions, or intent.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Nikon said its decision rested solely on the video's eligibility under the competition rules and should not be read as a judgment of the entrant's professional reputation, scientific contributions or intent.","causal_attribution":"Nikon's qualification of its own decision."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The other winners also moved up a notch'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'The awards have been updated accordingly on the Nikon Small World website.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"After the disqualification the runner-up became the winner and the other winners moved up a place.","causal_attribution":"Consequence of the decision for the rankings; Nikon's site was not inspected."},{"id":"c9","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'says he ran the video through Google Gemini, and the result came back with an invisible Google SynthID watermark that indicates at least some of the video is AI-generated.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"PetaPixel reported on 1 October 2026 that a medical student said he ran the video through Google Gemini and the result showed an invisible Google SynthID watermark indicating that at least some of the video is AI-generated.","causal_attribution":"A third party's own test as reported by PetaPixel; Nikon did not say what its checks found or whether it relied on any watermark."},{"id":"c10","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Nikon launched an investigation, and announced its conclusion in a statement Friday.'; 'Nikon also said it would revisit its rules and evaluation procedures for the annual competition in future.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"CNN reported on Monday 12 October 2026 that Nikon announced its conclusion in a statement on Friday, that is 9 October 2026, and that Nikon said it would revisit its rules and evaluation procedures for the competition.","causal_attribution":"Nikon's statement as reported by CNN; the date is computed from CNN's Friday reference in a report dated Monday 12 October."}],"effects":[{"label":"the entrant lost the first-place award after Nikon found the video broke its generative-AI rules","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://petapixel.com/2026/10/09/nikon-disqualifies-winner-of-small-world-in-motion-competition-for-using-ai/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full; no translation was needed. The live page refused the fetcher (HTTP 403); the article was read in a Wayback Machine capture of the same URL. It quotes a Nikon spokesperson.","independence_group":"petapixel-oct-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/articles/cxnv0qgg7qdzo","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full; no translation was needed.","independence_group":"bbc-newsround-oct-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.the-scientist.com/nikon-disqualifies-winning-video-over-ai-use-following-weeks-of-controversy-75123","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full; no translation was needed. It quotes a Nikon statement, a Nikon spokesperson email and a scientist interviewed by the magazine.","independence_group":"the-scientist-oct-2026"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/10/winning-nikon-small-world-in-motion-video-disqualified-for-ai-use/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full; no translation was needed. It reproduces the Nikon statement and attributes the entrant's explanation to a BBC report.","independence_group":"ars-technica-oct-2026"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://petapixel.com/2026/10/01/nikon-re-reviewing-winner-of-small-world-in-motion-contest-after-ai-accusation/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full; no translation was needed. The live page refused the fetcher (HTTP 403); the article was read in a Wayback Machine capture of the same URL.","independence_group":"petapixel-oct-2026"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/12/science/nikon-revokes-small-world-prize-intl-scli","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full on 2026-10-13 (cnn.com HTTP 200; the same text is syndicated on MSN). It quotes Nikon's statement and the entrant's LinkedIn comments. No translation was needed.","independence_group":"cnn-oct-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Which AI software the entrant used and how much of the video it produced.","What checks Nikon carried out; a spokesperson said it could not comment on the details.","When Nikon made the decision; CNN reports that Nikon announced it in a statement on Friday 9 October 2026.","Whether the entrant contests the decision.","Whether Nikon relied on any watermark check; the SynthID result PetaPixel reported is a third party's own test."],"geography":{"basis":"The inspected sources do not locate the competition decision, and they give conflicting institutional affiliations for the entrant, so no country is recorded.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a sanction for an entrant's AI use: Nikon stripped the winning video of its first place after finding it broke the contest's generative-AI rules. The entrant acknowledged using AI and said he believed he followed the rules, and the record states both accounts.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-13"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is a competition organiser's sanction in response to an entrant's use of AI. Nikon said it determined that the winning video did not comply with the competition rules regarding generative AI, and BBC Newsround reported that the entrant acknowledged using AI. No source describes an AI system producing output about the entrant, so the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Nikon disqualifies the winning video of its 2026 Small World in Motion microscopy contest, saying it broke the contest's generative-AI rules","summary":"In October 2026 Nikon disqualified the first-placed video in its 2026 Small World in Motion microscopy video competition, saying that after re-evaluating the video and supporting materials with its judging panel it had determined the entry did not comply with the competition rules on generative AI, and it moved the other winners up. Scientists had publicly questioned whether the video, presented as beating cilia from a child's airway, showed real cells. The entrant had acknowledged using AI but, according to BBC Newsround, said he believed he had followed the rules. Nikon said the decision was not a judgment of the entrant's professional reputation, scientific contributions or intent.","incidentDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-09","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI software the entrant acknowledged using in producing the video; Nikon found the entry broke its generative-AI rules, and the entrant said he used AI to distinguish and visualise features rather than to generate the movie (as reported)","aiProduct":"Unidentified video tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The entrant lost the first-place award after Nikon decided, in response to his use of AI, that the video broke its generative-AI rules (Nikon statement as reported).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One entrant, whose winning video was disqualified (Nikon statement as reported by BBC Newsround and PetaPixel). Counted under own use because he used the AI software. Patients and support groups that a scientist said were affected by the controversy are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://petapixel.com/2026/10/09/nikon-disqualifies-winner-of-small-world-in-motion-competition-for-using-ai/","primarySourceLabel":"PetaPixel, 9 October 2026: Nikon disqualifies winner of Small World in Motion competition for using AI","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:16:08.397971+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:47.413262+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["consequential-response","generative-ai-rules","competition","disqualification","microscopy","science-imaging"]},{"id":"2026-doe-v-openai-stalking","metadataReview":{"version":1,"geography":{"basis":"Re-checked on 2026-10-10 against the two cited bodies (TechCrunch, read live in English; Bloomberg Law, whose live page exposes only the opening paragraphs before a login wall) and two newly inspected English bodies, The San Francisco Standard of 13 Apr 2026 and the Times of India relay of 11 Apr 2026. TechCrunch states the suit was 'filed in California Superior Court in San Francisco County' and the SF Standard reports 'a Monday hearing in San Francisco Superior Court' before Judge Harold Kahn, which place the court in the United States. The SF Standard describes the plaintiff as 'A San Francisco woman', which is her reported location and supports affected_person_countries US; TechCrunch's '53-year-old Silicon Valley entrepreneur' describes the ChatGPT user. No body states where the stalking, the distribution of the generated reports to her family, friends and employer, or the January 2026 arrest took place: the SF Standard says the man was released 'from custody in another jurisdiction' without naming it, and her November notice being copied to the San Francisco Police Department is a police force's location, not an event location. Residence and police location do not locate an event, so event_countries remains a reviewed unknown. The provider's headquarters, the court's seat and the outlets' locations were not used.","evidence":[{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"California","location":"victim_description","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"filed in California Superior Court by Edelson PC","location":"outcome_details","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"according to a new lawsuit filed in California Superior Court in San Francisco County","location":"https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/10/stalking-victim-sues-openai-claims-chatgpt-fueled-her-abusers-delusions-and-ignored-her-warnings/","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"A San Francisco woman is asking a judge to order OpenAI","location":"https://sfstandard.com/2026/04/13/woman-fears-life-s-asking-judge-cut-ex-s-chatgpt/","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["US"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"In a Monday hearing in San Francisco Superior Court, Judge Harold Kahn ordered OpenAI","location":"https://sfstandard.com/2026/04/13/woman-fears-life-s-asking-judge-cut-ex-s-chatgpt/","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["US"]}],"court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"unresolved":["The event setting is unknown after review. No inspected body states where the stalking, the distribution of the ChatGPT-generated reports or the January 2026 arrest occurred; 'San Francisco woman' and 'Silicon Valley entrepreneur' describe the people, the man was released 'from custody in another jurisdiction' that no body names, and copying SFPD on the November notice is a police force's location, not an event location.","The complaint (San Francisco County Superior Court No. CGC26635725) was not obtained: edelson.com returned HTTP 403 live with no Internet Archive capture, and state-court filings are not on CourtListener. The geography rests on the outlets' statements about the filing and hearing.","Bloomberg Law was read only to its login wall (first three paragraphs, the third truncated).","Lead for a later full review: the SF Standard reports a 13 Apr 2026 hearing continuing the account suspension to a May hearing and OpenAI's written declaration that the account had not been accessed in over three months; the retained row's outcome_details stop at the filing."],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-10","source_reviews":[{"url":"https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/10/stalking-victim-sues-openai-claims-chatgpt-fueled-her-abusers-delusions-and-ignored-her-warnings/","notes":"Cited primary source. Fetched live on 2026-10-10 (HTTP 200, html lang en-US, English, about 10,000 characters). States the suit was 'filed in California Superior Court in San Francisco County', describes the user as 'a 53-year-old Silicon Valley entrepreneur', the plaintiff as 'Jane Doe', the temporary-restraining-order application, the November Notice of Abuse, the January arrest and the incompetency finding. Names no place for the stalking, the report distribution or the arrest.","access":"read","language":"en-US"},{"url":"https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/openai-accused-of-encouraging-stalkers-delusion-through-chatgpt","notes":"Fetched live on 2026-10-10 (HTTP 200, html lang en, English). Only the headline, dateline (April 10, 2026) and first three paragraphs (the third cut mid-sentence) are exposed before a 'Log in to keep reading' wall (about 1,400 characters). The visible text states the complaint was 'filed Thursday in California Superior Court' and describes the GPT-4o-generated clinical-style reports; it names no event location. The remainder of the article was not read.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://sfstandard.com/2026/04/13/woman-fears-life-s-asking-judge-cut-ex-s-chatgpt/","notes":"Newly inspected on 2026-10-10 (HTTP 200, html lang en, English, about 12,800 characters). The Standard reviewed the court filings and spoke to the plaintiff's lawyers. Describes the plaintiff as 'A San Francisco woman', the Monday (13 Apr 2026) hearing before Judge Harold Kahn in San Francisco Superior Court continuing the account suspension until a May hearing, OpenAI's declaration that the account had not been accessed in over three months, the November notice copied to SFPD and the FBI, and the ex-partner's release 'from custody in another jurisdiction' (not named). Not a cited source of the row; a lead for a later full review (post-filing hearing and OpenAI's response).","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/silicon-valley-entrepreneur-accused-of-using-chatgpt-to-harass-and-stalk-ex-girlfriend-openai-sued/articleshow/130186639.cms","notes":"Newly inspected on 2026-10-10 (HTTP 200, html lang en, English). A relay of the complaint reporting ('according to a lawsuit filed in California'; '53-year-old Silicon Valley entrepreneur') with no reporting of its own and no event location; not independent of the TechCrunch account.","access":"read","language":"en"}]},"name":"Jane Doe lawsuit alleges ChatGPT reinforced her abuser’s delusions and stalking","summary":"A woman’s lawsuit alleges that ChatGPT reinforced an abuser’s delusions, helped him create psychological claims about her and failed to address warnings about his conduct. The complaint describes stalking, threats and resulting harm. Those assertions remain the plaintiff’s allegations.","incidentDate":"2025-07-15","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"cumulative_relationship","reportedDate":"2026-04-09","aiSystem":"ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":["third_party_harm_facilitation","delusion_reinforcement","psychological_manipulation","crisis_response"],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","reputational_harm","exploitation_or_abuse","harm_to_others","legal_harm","loss_of_liberty","psychiatric_deterioration"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A participant distributed AI-generated diagnostic claims about his former partner, was later arrested for alleged bomb threats and assault, and was found incompetent to stand trial. The former partner sued over the resulting stalking and abuse.","frameworkFacets":["P1a","P1c","P1d","P3a","P3b","P3d","P5b","P5d"],"pathwayDirection":"both","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The complaint and criminal record document one AI participant's psychiatric and legal harms and one former partner's stalking, reputational, and psychological harms.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-CA","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/10/stalking-victim-sues-openai-claims-chatgpt-fueled-her-abusers-delusions-and-ignored-her-warnings/","primarySourceLabel":"TechCrunch — Stalking victim sues OpenAI","firstPublishedAt":"2026-04-28T13:00:08.422853+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-10T03:26:40.997203+00:00","scopeVersion":"participant-v2","tags":["lawsuit","chatgpt","openai","stalking","harassment","bomb-threats","third-party-harm","delusion","us","california","edelson"]},{"id":"2025-holmen-norway-gdpr","metadataReview":{"version":1,"geography":{"basis":"Carried forward from the 2026-09-15 metadata review and now checked against the inspected noyb press page. noyb describes him as the Norwegian user and refers to his home town without naming it; residence in Trondheim rests on the retained row, so affected-person country is NO by reported residence. The noyb page does not state where he queried ChatGPT or where the output was viewed, so the event location remains unknown after review. The complaint was filed with the Norwegian data protection authority (Datatilsynet), a regulator rather than a court, so court_countries is empty as a reviewed result. This is a metadata review and does not verify the underlying account.","evidence":[{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"Trondheim, Norway","location":"victim_description","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["NO"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"'When the Norwegian user Arve Hjalmar Holmen wanted to find out if ChatGPT had any information about him, he was confronted with a made up horror story'","location":"https://noyb.eu/en/ai-hallucinations-chatgpt-created-fake-child-murderer","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["NO"]}],"court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["NO"]},"unresolved":["The location where the ChatGPT output was generated or viewed is not stated in the inspected noyb page or the retained row; event_countries remains empty as a reviewed unknown.","No court proceeding: the Datatilsynet complaint is a regulatory complaint, so court_countries is empty as a reviewed result.","The complaint PDF linked from the noyb page and any Norwegian-language coverage were not inspected; only the English press page was reviewed."],"reviewed_on":"2026-09-23","source_reviews":[{"url":"https://noyb.eu/en/ai-hallucinations-chatgpt-created-fake-child-murderer","notes":"Read live on 2026-09-23 (noyb, 20 March 2025; html lang=en; the page offers translations in other languages). Describes the complainant as a Norwegian user, the fabricated output (murder of two of his children, attempted murder of his third son, 21-year sentence), the mix of real details including his home town, and the complaint filed with the Norwegian Datatilsynet. Does not locate the query or the viewing of the output.","access":"read","language":"en"}]},"name":"Holmen v. OpenAI - Norway GDPR Complaint","summary":"ChatGPT falsely accused Norwegian citizen Arve Hjalmar Holmen of murdering two of his sons, attempting to murder his third son, and being sentenced to 21 years prison. Mixed real personal details with horrific fabrications. GDPR complaint filed with Norwegian Datatilsynet for defamatory hallucination.","incidentDate":"2025-03-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-03-15","aiSystem":"ChatGPT","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":["psychological_manipulation","identity_destabilization","third_party_harm_facilitation"],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Arve Hjalmar Holmen discovered ChatGPT combining real personal details with false claims that he murdered two sons and attempted to murder a third. He filed a GDPR complaint over the defamatory output.","frameworkFacets":["P3a","P5b","P5c"],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The regulator complaint documents one named participant's distress and reputational harm.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"NO","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://noyb.eu/en/ai-hallucinations-chatgpt-created-fake-child-murderer","primarySourceLabel":"noyb — 'AI hallucinations: ChatGPT created a fake child murderer', the complaint filed with Datatilsynet","firstPublishedAt":"2026-01-13T10:13:04.624733+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:05.427919+00:00","scopeVersion":"participant-v2","tags":["norway","gdpr","chatgpt","defamation","hallucination","noyb","false_accusations"]}]}