{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-09T07:22:38.362Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"sanctions","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":4,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-nebraska-supreme-court-strikes-self-represented-appellant-brief-over-ai-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'his brief contains numerous citations'; 'to fictitious cases and misstatements of law, which are the'; 'result of his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence'; 'In light of these deficiencies, we strike'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the self-represented appellant's brief contained numerous citations to fictitious cases and misstatements of law resulting from his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence, and struck the brief.","causal_attribution":"Finding stated in the court's published opinion of 2 October 2026."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'litigants are held to the same standard as practicing attorneys'; 'relies upon nonexistent legal authority is'; 'an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions'; 'we will stop short of dismissing'; 'dismissal of the appeal in lieu of plain error review may follow'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that self-represented litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys and that submitting a brief relying on nonexistent legal authority is an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions, but stopped short of dismissing the appeal and reviewed for plain error, warning that dismissal may follow in future cases.","causal_attribution":"Holding stated in the court's published opinion."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'sanctioned him to serve a term of 90 days’ incarceration'; 'Finding no plain error, we affirm'; 'time to a period of 5 weeks and once again ordered that he pay'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Reviewing for plain error only, the court found none and affirmed the district court's contempt finding and its sanction of 90 days' incarceration with purge conditions, a temporary reduction of parenting time and an attorney-fee award.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the court's published opinion; the contempt arose from decree violations unrelated to AI."}],"effects":[{"label":"a self-represented appellant's brief was struck for AI-fabricated citations and his appeal was reviewed only for plain error","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewOpinion?docId=N00013498PUB","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library PDF (text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the opinion. HTTP 200.","independence_group":"nebraska-supreme-court-opinion-2026-10-02"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which generative AI tool the appellant used and what it produced; the opinion records only his admission and the presence of fictitious citations.","Whether the appeal would have fared differently under full review; the court reviewed for plain error and found none.","Whether the appellant has served the incarceration sanction or purged it."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal is from the District Court for Sarpy County, Nebraska, and the opinion is of the Nebraska Supreme Court (opinion caption and background). The appellant litigated the divorce in Nebraska; the opinion gives no other residence.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a consequential-response case on the court's own published opinion: the Nebraska Supreme Court struck a self-represented appellant's brief because its fabricated citations resulted from his admitted use of generative AI, reviewed only for plain error and affirmed the contempt order against him. The facts are documented by the opinion; the appellant is a private party in a family case and is not named in the public text.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The reported harm is the court's response to the appellant's use of generative AI: the Nebraska Supreme Court's published opinion states that his brief contained numerous citations to fictitious cases and misstatements of law 'which are the result of his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence (AI)', that the court struck the brief for that reason and reviewed only for plain error. The opinion does not identify the tool or quote its output. The AI-generated citations informed the court's decision about the appellant (informed_decision_about): the court read the brief, found its authorities fictitious, struck it on that ground and limited its review to plain error.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Nebraska Supreme Court strikes a self-represented appellant's brief over fabricated citations from admitted AI use; plain-error review only (2 Oct 2026)","summary":"On 2 October 2026 the Nebraska Supreme Court struck the appellate brief of a self-represented party appealing a contempt order in his divorce case because the brief contained numerous citations to fictitious cases and misstatements of law, which the court said were the result of his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence. The court held that self-represented litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys and that submitting a brief relying on nonexistent authority is an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions. Citing the novelty of the issue for self-represented parties, it stopped short of dismissing the appeal and reviewed only for plain error, finding none and affirming the district court's contempt finding, its sanction of 90 days' incarceration with purge conditions, a temporary reduction of his parenting time and an attorney-fee award. The court warned that in future cases dismissal of the appeal may follow. The opinion does not name the AI tool.","incidentDate":"2026-10-02","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-02","aiSystem":"Generative artificial intelligence, not identified in the opinion, which the appellant admitted using to prepare an appellate brief that cited fictitious cases","aiProduct":"Unidentified legal research tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The appellant's brief was struck as a sanction for fabricated citations the court attributed to his admitted use of generative AI, so his appeal was reviewed only for plain error rather than on its assigned errors; the court affirmed the contempt order and 90-day incarceration sanction with purge conditions (Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, 2 October 2026). The opinion does not say whether the appeal would have succeeded under full review.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used generative AI to prepare the brief and whose brief was struck. The opposing party and the children are not counted as harmed by the AI-related sanction.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewOpinion?docId=N00013498PUB","primarySourceLabel":"Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, 322 Neb. 451, No. S-25-546, filed 2 October 2026 (court PDF, docId N00013498PUB)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:29:04.754849+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:29:04.754849+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated_citations","courts","self_represented_litigant","sanctions","united_states","nebraska"]},{"id":"2025-us-yale-law-scholar-suspended-after-ai-empowered-news-site-article","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Last week, though, she was abruptly barred from Yale’s campus in New Haven, Conn., and placed on administrative leave.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Yale officials cited the reason as allegations that she was tied to entities subject to U.S. sanctions.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"on administrative leave last week and barred her from campus.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Yale placed the scholar on administrative leave and barred the scholar from campus in early March 2025, after allegations that the scholar was tied to entities subject to US sanctions.","causal_attribution":"The New York Times is the origin. Inside Higher Ed relays it. Yale's own statement to The National is a separate party statement (claim c8). The leave letter and the exact date were not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The decision came three days after a news site, powered at least in part by artificial intelligence, published a story about","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The news site, Jewish Onliner, said that the scholar was connected to Samidoun","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"prompted by allegations on a lesser-known, largely AI-powered news site called Jewish Onliner","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Yale's decision came three days after a news site described as powered at least in part by artificial intelligence published a story on the scholar's connections to Samidoun. Inside Higher Ed and Middle East Eye identify the site as Jewish Onliner.","causal_attribution":"The New York Times states the sequence and does not name the site in the inspected extract. The article date and Yale's internal reasoning are not documented in the inspected sources."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"“The initial email from the general counsel had specifically linked to the Jewish Onliner article and said that was the trigger of the investigation, so there's no dispute about that,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"I received the email notifying us from Yale's general counsel that she had been put on administrative leave and on the grounds that we had failed to cooperate with their investigation, which was ridiculous,”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The scholar's lawyer says Yale's general counsel wrote that the Jewish Onliner article was the trigger of the investigation, and that Yale later placed the scholar on leave on the ground that, in the lawyer's words, 'we' (the scholar and the lawyer) had failed to cooperate with its investigation.","causal_attribution":"Single account by the scholar's lawyer as relayed by Middle East Eye. The Yale email was not inspected."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Jewish Onliner describes itself as “your online hub for insights, investigations, data and exposes about issues impacting the Jewish community. Empowered by AI capabilities\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"While AI plays a significant role in enhancing and accelerating our work and content, we want to emphasise that it’s only a tool.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"each person handles every part of a project: conducting OSINT [open source intelligence] research, analyzing the findings, and writing the piece. AI tools also play a significant role in enhancing and accelerating the work","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"articles are ultimately done by the site's human fact-checking team.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"The organization told the Times that humans, not AI, make the final edits on stories.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The site describes itself as empowered by AI. A person affiliated with the site says AI tools play a significant role and that each team member does the research, analysis and writing. The site's email to The National and its statement to the Times, as relayed by Inside Higher Ed, say humans fact-check content and make the final edits.","causal_attribution":"These are the site operators' own statements (emails to The National and to JTA, and a statement to the New York Times). How AI was used in the article about the scholar is not documented, and the JTA statement describes human research and writing."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"“I am not a member of any organization that would constitute a violation of U.S. law.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"told the Times that she’s not part “of any organization that would constitute a violation of U.S. law.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The scholar told the New York Times of not being a member of any organization that would constitute a violation of US law.","causal_attribution":"The scholar's own statement as quoted by Gizmodo and as paraphrased by Inside Higher Ed, which attributes it to a Times interview. The Times interview text beyond the extract was not inspected."},{"id":"c6","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"said she is not a member of Samidoun","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"has yet to explicitly deny her membership in Samidoun.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The scholar's lawyer says the scholar is not a member of Samidoun, and the site says the scholar has yet to explicitly deny membership.","causal_attribution":"Both positions are party statements. The inspected sources do not verify membership either way, and the site's underlying evidence (appearances on panels at Samidoun-sponsored events per the New York Times) was not inspected."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"had been enduring online harassment ever since the Jewish Onliner published its article.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"and Yale were reportedly the subject of intense harassment after Jewish Onliner published the article","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The scholar was reportedly subjected to online harassment after the article was published.","causal_attribution":"Lawyer's account relayed by Middle East Eye and an unsourced 'reportedly' statement in Gizmodo. The harassment itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In response to allegations about potential unlawful conduct, the appropriate process is to place an employee on a temporary administrative leave while a review is conducted to understand the facts of the matter.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"short-term position as an associate research scholar with the LPE Project expires next month.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"A Yale Law School representative said placing an employee on temporary administrative leave while a review is conducted is the appropriate process after allegations of potential unlawful conduct, and that the scholar's short-term position was due to expire the month after the statement.","causal_attribution":"Yale Law School's own statement as quoted by The National. The statement date is not given, so the expiry month is not established, and the effect of the leave on the scholar's employment is not reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"Administrative leave and campus ban after an AI-empowered news site article linked the scholar to a sanctioned group","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/us/yale-suspends-scholar-terrorism.html","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-report"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2025/03/13/ai-empowered-site-accuses-yale-scholar-terrorism-connection","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-report"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://gizmodo.com/yale-suspends-palestine-activist-after-ai-article-linked-her-to-terrorism-2000575148","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-report"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/muslim-scholar-international-law-barred-yale-university-after-ai-powered-terrorism-accusation","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"scholar-lawyer-account"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.thenationalnews.com/future/technology/2025/03/26/ai-powered-jewish-onliner-helyeh-doutaghi/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"the-national-statements"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/all-news/article-848011","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"site-own-statements"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","education","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The New York Times article was read only as a preview extract (a Wayback capture of about 3,000 characters ending at the paywall); passages beyond it were not seen.","The date the Jewish Onliner article was published and the exact date of Yale's leave decision are not stated in the inspected sources, so the incident date is given at month precision.","Which statements in the article, if any, were generated or drafted by AI, and whether any AI error contributed, is unknown.","The Jewish Onliner article itself was not inspected.","The National quotes a Yale Law School statement that the scholar's short-term position expires 'next month'. The statement date is not given, and the outcome of the investigation and any effect on the scholar's employment are not reported.","A person affiliated with the site says each team member does the research, analysis and writing, so the extent of AI use in the article about the scholar is unknown.","Whether the scholar was later reinstated, or how Yale's investigation concluded, is not covered by the inspected sources."],"geography":{"basis":"The New York Times places the barred campus in New Haven, Conn. The scholar's residence or nationality, the site operators' location and any court are not used.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Six public news reports were read. The New York Times original is cited from a preview extract only. Claims are attributed and left at reported or disputed status because the leave letter, the article and Yale's statements were not inspected beyond press quotations. The scholar is not named in any public field.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The New York Times describes the site as 'powered at least in part by artificial intelligence', the site describes itself as empowered by AI capabilities, and a person affiliated with the site says AI tools play a significant role in its work and humans fact-check. A person affiliated with the site also says each team member does the research, analysis and writing, and the inspected sources do not show that AI produced the article about the scholar.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Yale Law School scholar placed on leave and barred from campus after article on an AI-empowered news site linked the scholar to a sanctioned group","summary":"In March 2025 Yale placed a Yale Law School scholar, who was deputy director of a Yale Law School project, on administrative leave and barred the scholar from campus. The New York Times reports the decision came three days after a news site described as powered at least in part by artificial intelligence published a story on the scholar's connections to Samidoun, a group on a US sanctions list. Inside Higher Ed and Middle East Eye identify the site as Jewish Onliner. The scholar's lawyer says Yale's general counsel named the article as the trigger of the investigation. The scholar told the Times of not being a member of any organization that would violate US law, and the lawyer says the scholar is not a member of Samidoun. A Yale Law School representative told The National that placing an employee on temporary administrative leave while a review is conducted is the appropriate process and that the scholar's short-term position was due to expire the following month. The site says humans fact-check and that AI tools play a significant role in its work. The inspected sources do not show that AI produced the article.","incidentDate":"2025-03-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-03-12","aiSystem":"Jewish Onliner (Substack news site describing itself as empowered by AI capabilities; models and tools not identified in the inspected sources)","aiProduct":"Jewish Onliner (suspected)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The New York Times reports the scholar was barred from Yale's campus and placed on administrative leave, and the scholar's lawyer told Middle East Eye the article was named as the trigger of Yale's investigation, that the scholar suffered online harassment and that Yale should restore the scholar's reputation.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One scholar reported placed on leave and barred from campus. Yale, the site's other subjects and the harassers are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/us/yale-suspends-scholar-terrorism.html","primarySourceLabel":"The New York Times (12 Mar 2025), preview extract","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T13:28:55.093356+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:19.811349+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-lacey-insurance-discovery-relief-denied-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 8 para 20: 'I have struck, and decline to'; 'consider, any of the supplemental briefs'; 'I decline to award any of the discovery relief'; p. 7 para 17: 'The initial, undisclosed use of AI products to'; 'generate the first draft of the brief was flat-out wrong.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought because her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research.","causal_attribution":"The order itself connects the struck briefs and denial of relief to counsel's undisclosed AI use, failure to cite-check and re-submission of the defective brief (paras 17-20)."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 2 para 5: 'approximately nine of the 27 legal'; 'citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect in some way. At least two of the'; 'authorities cited do not exist at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order records that about nine of the 27 citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect and that at least two cited authorities do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The special master's own after-the-fact review, as recorded in the order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 10 para 24: 'clearly not at fault for the AI debacle'; 'She will not, however, be financially'; para 25: 'I decline to order any sanction'; conclusion: 'aggregate amount of $31,100.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order makes the two firms jointly and severally pay $31,100 in aggregate, states the client was not at fault and will not be financially responsible for the awards, and declines any sanction against individual lawyers.","causal_attribution":"Allocation of financial responsibility is directly recorded in the order."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, declaration p. 46 para 3: 'generative AI capabilities found in CoCounsel and Westlaw Precision and'; p. 47 para 4: 'It is unclear to me whether'; 'research tools I utilized returned some erroneous information.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied in part on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he cannot tell whether particular errors arose from his transcription or from a tool.","causal_attribution":"The declarant's own statement; the order does not determine which tool produced each error."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, joint response section II p. 76: 'None of the K&L Gates attorneys who worked on the subject brief used any'; order p. 3 para 7: 'the attorneys at K&L Gates didn’t'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The second firm states that none of its lawyers who worked on the brief used or had access to AI tools or knew that AI had been used until the special master's inquiries.","causal_attribution":"The firm's own submission; the order records that the special master had no reason to doubt the sworn statements."}],"effects":[{"label":"Loss of requested discovery relief after the claimant's briefs were struck","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English; read on 2026-10-09 from the retained PDF text of the 77-page filing: order pp. 2-10, appendix inventory p. 11, originating lawyer's declaration pp. 46-47 and the firms' joint response section II p. 76. PDF page 1 yielded no text. Not every appended exhibit was read.","independence_group":"lacey-ecf119"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which tool, if any, produced each erroneous citation or quotation; the declarant says he cannot distinguish his transcription errors from tool output.","Whether the requested discovery relief would have been granted had the briefs been accurate.","The later course of the insurance action and where the AI-assisted drafting took place.","Paragraph 1 of the order (PDF page 1) was not inspected because the page yielded no extractable text."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was issued by a special master in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The record does not state where the AI-assisted drafting took place or where the claimant lives, so event and affected-person countries are left unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"A filed court order directly establishes that the claimant's briefs were struck and her discovery relief denied because of AI-generated false citations in her lawyers' filings, with the monetary award placed on the firms. The tool identities are attributed to the declarant and kept as reported.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The filed order records that a lawyer used AI tools to generate the research outline for the claimant's brief and that the resulting brief contained false citations and quotations (about nine of 27 wrong, at least two non-existent). The special master read those authorities, found they did not exist, and on that basis struck the briefs and denied the discovery relief, writing that the use of AI affirmatively misled him. The declarant names CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini but cannot say which tool produced each error, so the per-tool contribution is unestablished.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Insurance claimant loses discovery relief after her lawyers file AI-generated false citations; special master's order sanctions the two firms $31,100","summary":"In an order dated 5 May 2025 and filed on 6 May in Lacey v. State Farm (C.D. Cal.), a special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research: about nine of 27 citations were wrong and at least two cited authorities did not exist. One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he could not tell whether particular errors came from his transcription or from a tool; co-counsel at the second firm say they used no AI tools and did not know AI had been used. The order makes the two firms jointly pay $31,100, states the client was not at fault and will not bear the awards, and imposes no penalty on individual lawyers.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-05","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-05-06","aiSystem":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, named in one lawyer's sworn declaration as the generative AI tools used for the research outline; the order itself refers to 'various AI tools' and does not establish which tool produced each error","aiProduct":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Gemini (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated citations; the $31,100 award falls on the firms, not on her.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One claimant whose briefs were struck and whose discovery relief was denied (order paras 20 and 24). She did not use the AI tools herself, so participant users is 0. The lawyers and firms bear the monetary award but are not counted as harmed persons.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Lacey v. State Farm General Insurance Co., C.D. Cal. 2:24-cv-05205, ECF 119: special master's sanctions order dated 5 May 2025, filed 6 May 2025 (with appendix)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T10:29:01.113121+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:12:38.363121+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025","ai-citations","court-sanction","legal-research","consequential-response"]},{"id":"2023-ho-chi-minh-city-huflit-ai-essay-half-marks-deducted","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hôm bữa thứ 5 giảng viên mới phát bài ra, nhận điểm mà xỉu ngang vì cô phát hiện bài viết dùng AI và trừ điểm' (on Thursday the lecturer returned the essays and I nearly fainted at the mark because she found the essay used AI and deducted marks); 'dùng những phần mềm dịch thuật từ Việt sang Anh cũng có nguy cơ tính là AI, và bị check đạo văn luôn' (using Vietnamese-to-English translation software also risks being counted as AI, and gets plagiarism-checked too); 'Tui bị trừ 50% số điểm, không biết kỳ này có qua môn được không nữa' (I lost 50 percent of the marks and do not know whether I can pass the course this term).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'bài tiểu luận môn viết của mình bị giảng viên trừ 50% số điểm. Lý do: bài làm sử dụng ứng dụng trí tuệ nhân tạo (AI) để viết bài' (the writing-course essay had 50 percent of its marks deducted by the lecturer; reason: the essay used an AI application to write it); 'Việc trừ điểm của giảng viên trong trường hợp này là phù hợp' (the lecturer's deduction in this case is appropriate, the vice-rector said).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Mình bị trừ 50% số điểm, không biết kỳ này có qua môn được không nữa' (I lost 50 percent of the marks and do not know whether I can pass the course this term).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lecturer deducted 50 percent of the marks on the student's writing-course essay after finding AI use; the lecturer said specialised plagiarism-checking software detects such use and that Vietnamese-to-English translation software can also be counted as AI; the student had been warned beforehand and wrote that the result left it unclear whether the course could be passed.","causal_attribution":"The student's own post and the named vice-rector's confirmation of the same case to Tuoi Tre; two separate accounts."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Đây là môn viết, bài tập kiểm tra khả năng viết độc lập của sinh viên. Do đó khi dùng công cụ hỗ trợ, AI đã vi phạm các quy tắc liêm chính. Việc trừ điểm của giảng viên trong trường hợp này là phù hợp' (this is a writing course; the assignment tests students' independent writing; so using an AI support tool breached the integrity rules; the lecturer's deduction in this case is appropriate); 'Văn bản chính thức về chế tài đối với việc sinh viên sử dụng ứng dụng AI làm bài tập thì chưa có, song trường có các quy định về liêm chính học thuật' (there is no official document on sanctions for students using AI applications in assignments, but the university has academic-integrity regulations).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The vice-rector said the lecturer had told students before the essay not to use AI applications, that the writing course tests independent writing, that using an AI support tool breached academic-integrity rules, that the deduction was appropriate, and that the university had no official document on sanctions for AI use but had academic-integrity regulations.","causal_attribution":"Named vice-rector speaking to Tuoi Tre; single chain."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Nhà trường không cấm sinh viên dùng AI hỗ trợ việc học. Tuy nhiên, giảng viên và sinh viên phải minh bạch' (the university does not ban students from using AI to support study, but lecturers and students must be transparent); 'Khi cần thiết, nhà trường có sử dụng một số dịch vụ có trả phí để phát hiện việc dùng AI' (when necessary the university uses some paid services to detect AI use).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'đại diện Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ - Tin học TPHCM cho biết chưa nhận được phản ánh chính thức của sinh viên về vấn đề này' (a HUFLIT representative said no formal complaint had been received from the student on this matter).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'nhà trường đã nhắc nhở sinh viên, thậm chí đã mua bản quyền phần mềm ứng dụng như Turnitin hướng dẫn cho giảng viên toàn trường để kiểm tra việc sử dụng trí tuệ nhân tạo trong các bài luận của sinh viên' (the university had reminded students and had even bought licences for software such as Turnitin, with guidance for lecturers across the university, to check the use of AI in students' essays).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"A university representative said the university does not ban AI support for study but requires transparency about the tools used, uses paid AI-detection services when necessary, and had not received a formal complaint from the student; a later report said the university had bought Turnitin licences for lecturers to check AI use in essays.","causal_attribution":"University representative statements to Thanh Nien and Dan Tri (same wording) and to Hoa Hoc Tro."}],"effects":[{"label":"50 percent of the essay marks were deducted after the lecturer found AI use, leaving the course result in doubt","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://tuoitre.vn/sinh-vien-huflit-bi-tru-50-diem-vi-dung-tri-tue-nhan-tao-viet-tieu-luan-2023111514305594.htm","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"vi","translation_note":"Read in Vietnamese on 2026-09-19 (Tuoi Tre Online, 15 November 2023). Student's account and the named vice-rector's comments. Model reading of the original; English glosses are the reviewer's.","independence_group":"tuoitre-vice-rector-2023-11-15"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://thanhnien.vn/dung-ai-viet-tieu-luan-mot-sinh-vien-khoc-rong-vi-bi-tru-50-diem-185231114153309161.htm","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"vi","translation_note":"Read in Vietnamese on 2026-09-19 (Thanh Nien, published 2023-11-14 16:18 +07:00). Quotes the confessions post and a university representative's statement; the same statement wording appears in Dan Tri.","independence_group":"huflit-representative-statement-2023-11"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://dantri.com.vn/giao-duc/sinh-vien-nhan-ket-dang-khi-su-dung-ai-lam-bai-tap-tieu-luan-20231115184550544.htm","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"vi","translation_note":"Read in Vietnamese on 2026-09-19 (Dan Tri, published 2023-11-16 06:00 +07:00). Same representative statement as Thanh Nien plus the note that no formal complaint had been received.","independence_group":"huflit-representative-statement-2023-11"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.huflitconfessions.com/blog/2097-mot-sinh-vien-huflit-bi-tru-nua-so-diem-vi-dung-ai-viet-tieu-luan.html","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"vi","translation_note":"Read in Vietnamese on 2026-09-19 (HUFLIT Confessions blog, published 2023-11-15 21:25 +07:00). Carries the full text of the anonymous student's post and restates the Tuoi Tre interview. The original social media post itself was not opened.","independence_group":"student-confessions-post-2023-11"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://hoahoctro.tienphong.vn/truong-huflit-mua-phan-mem-check-var-de-han-che-sinh-vien-nho-ai-viet-bai-luan-post1587963.tpo","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"vi","translation_note":"Read in Vietnamese on 2026-09-19 (Hoa Hoc Tro, Tien Phong, published 2023-11-19 09:58 +07:00). Restates the post and quotes a university representative on Turnitin licences.","independence_group":"hoahoctro-university-comment-2023-11-19"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","institutional_use"],"contexts":["education"],"unknowns":["Which AI or translation tool the student used, and which detection software the lecturer used for this essay; Turnitin is named only in a later general statement.","Whether the student passed the course.","The exact date the essay was returned (a Thursday before the 14 November 2023 post).","Whether the detection finding was reviewed by anyone other than the lecturer."],"geography":{"basis":"The university is in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and the student studies there; no legal proceeding.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["VN"],"affected_person_countries":["VN"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an ordinary educational adverse experience: an AI-detection finding led to a consequential grading decision, confirmed by the university's vice-rector. Five Vietnamese items read from three accounts (the student's post, the vice-rector, the university's statement). The student is anonymous; the university and officials are named as institutional actors.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The student's own post says the essay was written with AI or a translation tool and that the lecturer's specialised plagiarism software detected it; the vice-rector confirmed to Tuoi Tre that the essay used an AI support tool and endorsed the deduction; the university told two outlets it uses paid AI-detection services. The claim of AI use made about the student is the lecturer's finding; the lecturer explained it by reference to specialised plagiarism-checking software and the university says it pays for detection services, but no documented run of the software on this essay is described (made_claim_about); the student's AI or translation tool produced the essay text (acted_on_behalf). The lecturer, not the software, made the grading decision. Neither tool is named in the accounts of this case.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about","acted_on_behalf"]},"name":"Ho Chi Minh City: a university student lost half the marks on a writing-course essay after the lecturer found AI use, which the lecturer said specialised plagiarism software detects; the vice-rector endorsed the deduction and the student feared failing the course","summary":"In November 2023 a student at the Ho Chi Minh City University of Foreign Languages and Information Technology (HUFLIT) wrote on the university's anonymous confessions page that a writing-course essay had been returned with 50 percent of the marks deducted because the lecturer found it had been written with AI. The student said the lecturer had warned that AI-written essays would be treated as plagiarism if detected, had not expected detection, and learned from the lecturer that Vietnamese-to-English translation software could also be counted as AI use when checked with specialised plagiarism software; the student did not know whether the course could still be passed. The vice-rector told Tuoi Tre that the lecturer had told students before the assignment not to use AI applications, that the course tests independent writing, that using an AI support tool breached academic-integrity rules, and that the deduction was appropriate, while noting the university had no formal document on sanctions for AI use. A university representative told Thanh Nien and Dan Tri that the university does not ban AI but requires transparency about tools used, uses paid AI-detection services when necessary, and had not received a formal complaint from the student; a later report said the university had bought Turnitin licences for lecturers to check AI use in essays.","incidentDate":"2023-11-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2023-11-14","aiSystem":"An unspecified AI writing or Vietnamese-to-English translation tool used by the student, and specialised plagiarism software used by the lecturer to flag AI-generated text (the university later cited Turnitin)","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool and Turnitin (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Half the marks on a writing-course essay were deducted after the lecturer found AI use; the student said the penalty left the course result in doubt.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One student, the author of the confessions post, whose case the vice-rector discussed. Counted as a participant user because the student used the AI or translation tool on the essay.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"VN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://tuoitre.vn/sinh-vien-huflit-bi-tru-50-diem-vi-dung-tri-tue-nhan-tao-viet-tieu-luan-2023111514305594.htm","primarySourceLabel":"Tuoi Tre Online, 15 November 2023: Sinh viên HUFLIT bị trừ 50% điểm vì dùng trí tuệ nhân tạo viết tiểu luận (vice-rector interview)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-20T03:19:40.554997+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:48.926201+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["education","ai-detection","university","vietnam","ho-chi-minh-city","academic-integrity","translation-tool","grading"]}]}