{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-18T06:04:31.099Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"self-represented-litigant","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":2,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":3,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"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-australia-fair-work-commission-orders-former-aldi-worker-to-pay-costs-after-ai-drafted-claim-argued-wrong-date","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'he was notified of his dismissal on 26 March 2026, being 3 days short of 6 months employment'; 'notified of his dismissal at approximately 4:00pm on 26 March 2026'; 'At 10:02pm the same day'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The applicant was notified of his dismissal on 26 March 2026, three days short of the six-month minimum employment period, and lodged an unfair dismissal application that evening.","causal_attribution":"Facts recorded by the Commission; the date of notification was never disputed."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'application was obviously prepared using AI. It contained AI drafting notes including'; 'every email and document filed in the proceedings was drafted using AI'; 'conceded that he did use Artificial Intelligence to generate his written submissions'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Commission found that his application was obviously prepared using AI and contained AI drafting notes, that every email and document he filed was drafted using AI, and he conceded using AI to generate his written submissions.","causal_attribution":"The Commission's findings and the applicant's concession recorded in the decision."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'AI generated materials have focused on a different and irrelevant date, being the date the dismissal took effect'; 'AI-driven written submissions filed ahead of the hearing addressed the wrong question'; 'the High Court cases cited were real cases rather than hallucinations'; 'In the morning of Friday 31 July 2026 I took the time to write to'; 'sent to the parties in the afternoon of Friday 31 July 2026'; 'two further AI generated submissions that again addressed the wrong end date'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the decision, his AI-generated materials argued about the date the dismissal took effect, an irrelevant date, and addressed the wrong question, including after the Commission explained the correct test to him twice on 31 July 2026; the High Court cases they cited were real.","causal_attribution":"The Commission's own description of the AI-generated materials; whether a different tool or human adviser would have produced the same argument is not established."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'costs from 31 July 2026 in the amount of $1230'; 'is now $1230 worse off than he was before he started'; 'relied heavily on artificial intelligence to start and continue his unfair dismissal claim acted unreasonably by continuing his claim'; 'decision to continue his claim in the face of clear and specific information from the Fair Work Commission was ill-advised'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'told the former ALDI store assistant to pay $1,230 toward the supermarket'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 19 August 2026 the Commission ordered him to pay A$1,230 of Aldi's costs for the period from 31 July 2026, finding that continuing the claim after the warnings was unreasonable.","causal_attribution":"The order is established by the decision itself."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'adopted AI as his quasi-legal advisor and then blindly submitted AI generated outputs as his own material'; 'Using AI to assist in drafting correspondence and even submissions is not, of itself, unreasonable'; 'responsibility to properly assess for himself whether he was eligible'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Commission said it was quite possible he had adopted AI as his quasi-legal adviser, but held that using AI to draft submissions is not of itself unreasonable and that assessing his eligibility was his responsibility.","causal_attribution":"The Commission's assessment of the AI's role is stated as a possibility; it attributes the costs to his own unreasonable continuation."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2026/12125) was lodged against this decision'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"An appeal was lodged against the costs decision.","causal_attribution":"A note on the published decision; the appeal outcome is unknown."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'first written submissions addressed the same wrong question'; 'did not know any better about the test to be applied under s.383'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Commission noted that Aldi's first written submissions addressed the same wrong question, and accepted that before 31 July 2026 he did not know the correct test.","causal_attribution":"Context recorded by the Commission that limits the weight placed on the AI output before the warnings."}],"effects":[{"label":"self-represented former worker ordered to pay A$1,230 of his former employer's legal costs","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc3144.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 from fwc.gov.au (HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"fwc-2026-fwc-3144-decision"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/worker-must-pay-aldis-costs-after-running-dismissal-claim-on-ai/587691","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 (HTTP 200); a trade-press report of the same decision, so it shares the decision's independence group.","independence_group":"fwc-2026-fwc-3144-decision"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the applicant used; the decision names none.","Whether the AI tool or the applicant chose the argument about the effective date of dismissal.","The outcome of the appeal lodged against the costs decision (C2026/12125), and whether the costs have been paid."],"geography":{"basis":"The applicant was employed at an Aldi supermarket by ALDI Stores and brought his claim in Australia's Fair Work Commission, which decided it in Sydney. Where he lives is not stated and is not used.","court_countries":["AU"],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the Fair Work Commission's decision itself records that a dismissed worker's AI-drafted application and submissions argued an irrelevant date, that he continued after two warnings, and that he was ordered to pay A$1,230 in costs. The decision was read in full. The AI's causal role is the Commission's stated possibility; the Commission placed responsibility on the applicant.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-18"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Fair Work Commission's decision finds that the applicant's unfair dismissal application was obviously prepared using AI and quotes the AI drafting notes it contained, records his concession that he used AI to generate his written submissions, and finds that every email and document he filed was drafted using AI (communicated_with). It finds that those AI-generated materials argued an irrelevant date and addressed the wrong question, including after two warnings, and that his continuation of the claim caused the costs it ordered. The decision says it is quite possible he adopted AI as his quasi-legal adviser and places the responsibility on him. No product is named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Fair Work Commission orders former Aldi worker to pay A$1,230 costs after his AI-drafted unfair dismissal claim kept arguing the wrong date","summary":"On 19 August 2026 a Deputy President of Australia's Fair Work Commission ordered a self-represented former Aldi store worker to pay A$1,230 towards Aldi's legal costs. The decision records that his unfair dismissal application, lodged on the evening he was told of his dismissal on 26 March 2026, was obviously prepared using AI and still contained AI drafting notes, and that every email and document he filed was drafted using AI. He was notified of his dismissal three days short of the six-month minimum employment period. According to the decision, his AI-generated materials kept arguing about a different, irrelevant date (when the dismissal took effect), including after the Commission explained the correct test to him twice by email on 31 July 2026. He discontinued at the hearing on 5 August 2026. The Deputy President found that continuing after those warnings was unreasonable and said it was quite possible he had adopted AI as his quasi-legal adviser, while stating that using AI to draft submissions is not of itself unreasonable and that the responsibility was his. The decision notes that an appeal was lodged against it.","incidentDate":"2026-03-26","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-19","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-08-19","aiSystem":"AI tool used by the applicant to draft his unfair dismissal application, emails and submissions, according to the Fair Work Commission; the application retained AI drafting notes. No product is named in the decision","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Fair Work Commission's decision, a self-represented former Aldi worker was ordered to pay A$1,230 in costs after continuing an ineligible unfair dismissal claim whose AI-generated submissions kept addressing the wrong question; the Commission placed the responsibility on him.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the applicant, who the decision says used AI to draft his application and every filing, and who was ordered to pay the costs. Aldi's own unrecovered legal fees are not counted as harm to a person.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"AU","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc3144.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Fair Work Commission, decision [2026] FWC 3144, costs in unfair dismissal matter U2026/4537 (19 August 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-18T03:15:37.606962+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-18T03:15:37.606962+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["australia","fair-work-commission","unfair-dismissal","self-represented-litigant","ai-generated-filings","costs-order"]},{"id":"2026-arizona-appeals-court-strikes-self-represented-appellants-ai-hallucinated-citations-orders-fees-sanction","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In his opening brief with the Court of Appeals, he made eight citations. The court found that six of them were deficient; two were cases that “simply do not exist.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The self-represented appellant's opening brief made eight citations; the court found six deficient, including two cases that do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings as reported by the Arizona Mirror."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"readily acknowledged that he relied on generative AI to write his brief; he admitted he did nothing to independently verify the citations","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations he acknowledged relying on generative AI to write the brief and admitted doing nothing to verify the citations.","causal_attribution":"The appellant's own acknowledgement, recorded in the opinion and reported by the Arizona Mirror."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Accordingly, citing a hallucinated case in a legal filing is sanctionable conduct; traceable to dealing with the fake citations; appeal was also rejected because there were no supportive legal authorities for his claims once the inaccurate and false citations were stricken","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that citing a hallucinated case is sanctionable regardless of intent, ordered him to pay the portion of the other party's attorney's fees traceable to the fake citations, and rejected the appeal because no supportive authority remained once the citations were struck.","causal_attribution":"The court's ruling as reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The three-judge panel noted that court rules allow for more severe sanctions, including contempt charges and monetary fines.; isn’t a trained legal professional, it opted to narrowly sanction him","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court chose this narrow sanction over contempt or fines because he said he did not intend to deceive and is not a trained legal professional.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"brief citations struck, appeal rejected and fee sanction ordered","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://kiowacountypress.net/content/arizona-court-appeals-citing-fake-ai-generated-cases-can-get-you-sanctioned-no-matter-your","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 (HTTP 200); no translation was needed. Republication of the Arizona Mirror (States Newsroom) report.","independence_group":"arizona-mirror-report-jul-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which generative AI tool the appellant used.","The amount of the fee award, which depended on the other party's documentation."],"geography":{"basis":"The brief was filed in, and the sanction imposed by, the Arizona Court of Appeals in a Maricopa County probate appeal. Residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the Arizona Mirror's report of the Court of Appeals opinion of 15 July 2026: a self-represented appellant acknowledged relying on generative AI to write a brief that cited nonexistent cases, and the court struck the citations, rejected the appeal and ordered him to pay the fees they caused. The parties are private persons and are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-18"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The appellant acknowledged in a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations that he relied on generative AI to write his opening brief, which the court found cited two nonexistent cases and misstated others; the AI-generated text reached him (communicated_with), and the court read the fabricated citations, struck them, rejected the appeal for want of authority and imposed a fee sanction for them (informed_decision_about). The tool is not named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Arizona appeals court strikes a self-represented appellant's AI-hallucinated citations, rejects his probate appeal and orders him to pay fees as a sanction","summary":"In a published opinion of July 2026, the Arizona Court of Appeals found that a self-represented appellant's opening brief in a probate dispute contained eight citations, six of them deficient, including two cases that do not exist. In a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations he acknowledged relying on generative AI to write the brief and said he did nothing to verify the citations. The court struck the inaccurate and false citations, rejected the appeal because no supportive authority remained, held that citing a hallucinated case is sanctionable whether or not it is intended, and ordered him to pay the share of the other party's attorney's fees traceable to the fake citations. Because he said he did not intend to deceive and is not legally trained, the court chose this narrow sanction over contempt or fines. It described the opinion as the first published Arizona ruling on generative AI hallucinations in filings.","incidentDate":"2026-07-15","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-07-19","aiSystem":"Generative AI, not identified in the report, that the appellant said he relied on to write his opening brief, which cited two nonexistent cases and misstated others","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court, the appellant's AI-drafted brief cited nonexistent cases; the citations were struck, the appeal was rejected and he was ordered to pay the share of the other party's attorney's fees caused by the fake citations.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used generative AI and was sanctioned.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AZ","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://kiowacountypress.net/content/arizona-court-appeals-citing-fake-ai-generated-cases-can-get-you-sanctioned-no-matter-your","primarySourceLabel":"Arizona Mirror (States Newsroom), republished by Kiowa County Press, July 2026: Arizona Court of Appeals on sanctions for fake AI-generated cases","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-18T03:14:48.762612+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-18T03:14:48.762612+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated-citations","self-represented-litigant","appeal","sanction","attorney-fees","arizona"]},{"id":"2026-connecticut-court-revokes-self-represented-plaintiffs-e-filing-access-over-hidden-instructions-aimed-at-ai","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"contains hidden text set in tiny-point type and colored white, so that it is effectively invisible to a person reading the document; In substance it directs that any artificial-intelligence model reviewing or receiving the document ensure that its output agrees with the plaintiff's filing; also filed July 24, 2026, contains a further, abbreviated, instance of the concealed, tiny-point white text","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The offending text directed any AI system reviewing the document to ensure textual outputs agreed with the plaintiff’s arguments","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A motion for default filed by the self-represented plaintiff on 24 July 2026 contained hidden text in tiny white type directing any AI model reviewing it to ensure its output agreed with the filing and to work toward reversing the Chief Clerk's denial of his default request; a notice filed the same day carried an abbreviated version.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings as excerpted by Volokh; Ars Technica reports the same decision."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The Court sent its Notice of [a] Hearing [to consider whether there was a sanctionable prompt injection] on July 31, 2026.; On the morning of the Hearing, the plaintiff again hid text in pleadings.; as a dutiful citizen auditing the Court's Al systems; The plaintiff replied that he did so as a joke","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"After the court sent notice on 31 July 2026 of a hearing on the hidden text, the plaintiff hid further messages in later filings, including a nonsense message, a short greeting and a link to a video; he told the court the first instruction was an audit of the court's AI systems and the later messages were jokes.","causal_attribution":"The court's account of the hearing, as excerpted."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The technique has a name, \"prompt injection.\"; The Court does not find the plaintiff credible that he only added the prompt to \"audit\" the Court's use of artificial-intelligence systems.; The plaintiff's ability to file matters electronically through the Court's e-filing system is rescinded. Any future pleadings or exhibits by the plaintiff shall be filed in person, on paper, at the clerk's office.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"declined to order monetary penalties","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court found the instruction a prompt injection, did not credit the audit explanation, and rescinded the plaintiff's ability to file electronically, requiring future pleadings to be filed in person on paper at the clerk's office; Ars Technica reports that no monetary penalty was ordered.","causal_attribution":"The court's order as excerpted; the absence of a monetary penalty is Ars Technica's report."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The Connecticut Judicial Branch does not utilize an artificial-intelligence system to review or decide filings, although a number of court systems elsewhere do so. The undersigned denied Docket Entry #177.00 on its merits working off a printed version of the motion, so the hidden instruction had no impact on a ruling.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"confirmed that the hidden text had no impact in a case where a man alleged a healthcare provider was improperly withholding access to records","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court stated that the Connecticut Judicial Branch does not use an AI system to review or decide filings and that the judge denied the motion on its merits from a printed version, so the hidden instruction had no impact on a ruling.","causal_attribution":"The court's statement, as excerpted and as reported by Ars Technica."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"told Reuters yesterday that he maintains that his intent was to audit the court","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff told Reuters that he maintains his intent was to audit the court, according to Ars Technica.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiff's own account, relayed by Ars Technica; the court did not find it credible."}],"effects":[{"label":"e-filing access rescinded; future filings must be made on paper at the clerk's office","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/08/13/court-faults-self-represented-plaintiff-for-including-hidden-prompt-injection-in-court-filing/","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 (HTTP 200); no translation was needed. The post quotes long passages of the decision with ellipses.","independence_group":"connecticut-superior-court-decision-aug-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/suspecting-court-of-using-ai-man-injected-prompts-in-filings-to-try-to-win-case/","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 (HTTP 200); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"connecticut-superior-court-decision-aug-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The exact date of the memorandum of decision; the sources say it was issued in the week before 13 August 2026.","Whether the plaintiff used an AI tool to draft his filings or the hidden text; Ars Technica's suggestion that he was convinced by an AI system is not established by the decision excerpt read.","Whether the sanction was challenged and how the underlying records dispute ended."],"geography":{"basis":"The filings were made in, and the sanction issued by, the Connecticut Superior Court. The plaintiff's residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a consequential-response case: the Connecticut Superior Court's decision, read through Volokh's excerpt and Ars Technica's report, rescinds a self-represented plaintiff's e-filing access because his filings carried hidden instructions aimed at AI systems. The court says no AI system reviews its filings and the text affected no ruling. The plaintiff is a private person and is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-18"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the court's response to concealed instructions aimed at AI systems: the decision, as excerpted, records hidden white text in the plaintiff's 24 July 2026 filings directing any AI model reviewing them to make its output agree with the filing, treats this as a prompt injection and rescinds his e-filing access for it. The court states that the Connecticut Judicial Branch uses no AI system to review or decide filings and that the hidden text affected no ruling, so no relation describing an AI system's own action toward the plaintiff is established (unknown; consequential response).","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Connecticut court revokes a self-represented plaintiff's e-filing access after finding hidden instructions aimed at AI systems in his filings","summary":"In a memorandum of decision issued in early August 2026, a Connecticut Superior Court judge found that a motion for default and a notice filed on 24 July 2026 by a self-represented plaintiff, in a suit against a healthcare provider over access to records, carried text in tiny white type that was invisible to a human reader but legible to software. The concealed text told any AI model reviewing the filing to make its output agree with the filing and to work toward reversing the Chief Clerk's denial of his default request. After the court gave notice of a sanctions hearing, he hid further messages in later filings, which he said were jokes. The court treated the first instruction as a prompt injection, did not believe his explanation that he was auditing the court's use of AI, and rescinded his ability to file electronically, so that future filings must be made on paper at the clerk's office; Ars Technica reports that no monetary penalty was imposed. The court said the Connecticut Judicial Branch does not use AI to review or decide filings and that the motion was denied on its merits from a printed copy, so the hidden text affected no ruling. The plaintiff told Reuters, according to Ars Technica, that his intent was to audit the court.","incidentDate":"2026-08-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-08-13","aiSystem":"Any AI system that the court, its staff or opposing counsel might use to review the filing, targeted by concealed instructions; the court says the Connecticut Judicial Branch uses no AI to review or decide filings, and no source reports any AI system processing the instructions","aiProduct":"Unidentified document-analysis tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's decision, the plaintiff lost the ability to file electronically and must file on paper at the clerk's office, as a sanction for hidden instructions aimed at AI systems in his filings.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented plaintiff whose e-filing access the decision rescinded.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-CT","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/08/13/court-faults-self-represented-plaintiff-for-including-hidden-prompt-injection-in-court-filing/","primarySourceLabel":"The Volokh Conspiracy (Reason), 13 August 2026: excerpt of the Connecticut Superior Court decision on hidden prompt injection in a court filing","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-18T03:07:35.832932+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-18T03:07:35.832932+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["prompt-injection","court-filing","sanction","self-represented-litigant","e-filing","connecticut"]}]}