{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-09-30T04:42:38.058Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"transcription","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":5,"coverage":{"cases":5,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":3,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":1,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":3,"mixedRelations":0,"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":"2025-apple-voicemail-transcription-insult-initial-shock","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Opening paragraphs through recipient reaction; subsequent paragraph confirming BBC listened to the original audio.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The recipient reported shock at an offensive AI voicemail transcription of a routine garage call, followed by amusement.","causal_attribution":"Recipient’s account of a brief reaction; no lasting psychological injury claimed."}],"effects":[{"label":"Brief shock at offensive transcription","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Recipient subsequently found the error funny","claim_id":"c1","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0l1kpz3w32o","kind":"journalism","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"bbc-voicemail-report"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Precise technical cause is unknown; the expert’s possible explanations are not findings."],"geography":{"basis":"Recipient described as from Dunfermline, Scotland. Exact location when reading the text is unstated.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"Concrete, brief adverse reaction and subsequent amusement are both preserved.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"BBC identifies Apple’s AI voice-to-text service and reports checking the original call.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Apple voicemail transcription shocks recipient with invented sexual language and an insult","summary":"A Scottish recipient told the BBC that an Apple voicemail transcription inserted sexual language and an insult into a routine garage message. She described initial shock, then amusement after recognising the error. The BBC said it listened to the original conventional business call.","incidentDate":"2025-03-05","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-03-07","aiSystem":"Apple voicemail transcription","aiProduct":"Apple voicemail transcription","aiCompany":"Apple","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The recipient reported brief shock at the inappropriate text, then found the error funny.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One interviewed recipient. No lasting distress or additional harmed person is established.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0l1kpz3w32o","primarySourceLabel":"BBC News, Grandmother gets X-rated message after Apple AI fail, 7 March 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T10:57:14.774679+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:55.675941+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2024-us-otter-notetaker-recorded-non-users-meetings-privacy-suit","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'participated in a Zoom meeting in California on February'; '24, 2025, where the Otter Notetaker was used by a meeting participant to transcribe the'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in California in March 2025'; 'used Zoom to communicate with a medical professional, and'; 'Illinois on January 10, 2025 and May 19, 2025 where the Otter Notetaker was used to'; 'participated in a Zoom meeting in Washington state in March'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state who'; 'participated in virtual meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their'; 'consent to record, transcribe, and store the contents of their communications.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the'; 'allegations concerning the named Plaintiff’s personal knowledge, experiences, expectations, or'","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'who alleges his privacy was \"severely invaded\" upon realizing Otter was secretly recording a confidential conversation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Seven people who were not Otter account holders allege that, on Zoom or Microsoft Teams calls (six give dates between March 2024 and May 2025), another participant used Otter Notetaker and Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations without their consent; the calls include one with a medical professional and meetings with a financial professional.","causal_attribution":"The plaintiffs attribute the recording to Otter's product design, which they say lets the notetaker record without every participant's consent; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'other personal information for its own commercial use, including to train its automatic speech'; 'The Illinois Plaintiffs allege that, during their virtual meetings, Otter'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Otter claims that before the audio of meetings is fed into its machine learning systems to help improve an AI speech recognition feature, it is \"de-identified,\"'","relation":"context","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter keeps their conversational data on its servers and uses it to train its speech-recognition and machine-learning models, and that it captured the Illinois plaintiffs' voiceprints; Otter's policy, as reported by NPR, says it trains on transcripts with users' permission and de-identifies audio.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs; Otter denies the allegations."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'felt frustrated, embarrassed, and stressed to learn that his'; 'conversation was recorded without his consent, and his information, voice, and'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One California plaintiff alleges that he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn that his conversation had been recorded without his consent.","causal_attribution":"Alleged by the plaintiffs as a consequence of Otter's recording."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ ECPA claim is denied.'; 'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ BIPA claims for lack of standing is denied.'; 'The motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend as to Count 2'; 'The motion is DENIED in all other respects.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 13 August 2026 the court denied Otter's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, holding that the alleged interception and retention of private conversations was a concrete injury, let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, and dismissed some other claims.","causal_attribution":"Procedural ruling on the pleadings; no finding that Otter recorded anyone unlawfully."}],"effects":[{"label":"the plaintiffs say Otter's notetaker recorded, transcribed and stored their conversations on calls they joined, without their consent, including a medical call and calls with a financial professional","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the plaintiffs say their conversations stay on Otter's servers for training its models and that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"one plaintiff says he felt frustrated, embarrassed and stressed to learn he had been recorded","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.35.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 35, filed 5 December 2025; RECAP PDF (68 pages) read on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200), plaintiffs' experience sections read in full. Plaintiffs' allegations, not findings.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part, ECF 68, 13 August 2026 (Judge Eumi K. Lee); RECAP PDF read in full on 2026-09-29. Rules on the pleadings and accepts the allegations as true for that purpose; it makes no finding of fact.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.80.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Otter.ai's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF 80, 17 September 2026; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29, plaintiff-experience paragraphs and responses read.","independence_group":"otter-answer"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Brewer v. Otter.ai, Inc., original Class Action Complaint, ECF 1, filed 15 August 2025; RECAP PDF read on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.npr.org/2025/08/15/g-s1-83087/otter-ai-transcription-class-action-lawsuit","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"NPR, 15 August 2025, read live on 2026-09-29 (HTTP 200). Reports the original complaint and summarises Otter's privacy policy; says neither side responded to requests for comment.","independence_group":"plaintiffs-account"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.79.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order, ECF 79, 16 September 2026; read on 2026-09-29. Procedural facts only.","independence_group":"ndcal-court-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","work","health","finance"],"unknowns":["Whether Otter's product notified the plaintiffs on their calls that the notetaker was present, and what the other participants' Otter settings were.","Whether the plaintiffs' conversations were in fact used to train Otter's models, and in what form.","The exact date of one Illinois plaintiff's meetings, which the complaint places only within the limitations period."],"geography":{"basis":"The consolidated complaint places the plaintiffs' calls in California, in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois, and in Washington state; the order describes the plaintiffs as individuals from California, Illinois and Washington state. The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a bounded series of concrete privacy harms reported by identified people in a pending federal suit: each named plaintiff describes a call on which another participant's AI notetaker recorded and transcribed them without consent. The account rests on the plaintiffs' pleadings and the court's ruling on them; Otter denies the allegations. Plaintiff names are omitted.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Each plaintiff alleges that the Otter Notetaker, an AI transcription assistant, was used on their call and recorded and transcribed it; the relation recorded is that the AI produced speaker-attributed transcripts and, the complaint alleges, voiceprints identifying each speaker, a record of who said what (ECF 35 paras 10-11). Otter admits it offers an AI meeting assistant called Otter Notetaker but says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' calls and denies the allegations.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"United States: seven people who say they did not hold Otter accounts say Otter's AI Notetaker recorded and transcribed their Zoom and Teams meetings without their consent, including a medical call and calls with a financial professional, and kept the data to train its models; a federal court let their core privacy claims proceed","summary":"Seven people in California, Illinois and Washington state are suing Otter.ai in a consolidated class action in the Northern District of California. Each says another meeting participant used Otter's AI Notetaker on a Zoom or Microsoft Teams call they joined, and that Otter recorded, transcribed and stored their conversation without their consent; six of them date their calls between March 2024 and May 2025. They say they were not Otter account holders. The calls they describe include a medical consultation, meetings with a financial professional and work discussions. They allege that Otter keeps the recordings and uses them to train its speech-recognition models, that it captured voiceprints of the Illinois plaintiffs, and one of them says learning of the recording left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed. On 13 August 2026 the court found that the alleged interception of private conversations was a concrete injury and let the federal wiretap, California eavesdropping and Illinois biometric claims proceed, while dismissing some claims. Otter's answer to the consolidated complaint, filed on 17 September 2026, says it lacks knowledge of the plaintiffs' experiences and denies the allegations.","incidentDate":"2024-03-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-19","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-08-15","aiSystem":"Otter Notetaker, Otter.ai's AI meeting assistant, joined to Zoom and Microsoft Teams calls by another participant's Otter account","aiProduct":"Otter Notetaker","aiCompany":"Otter.ai, Inc.","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiffs allege that Otter recorded, transcribed and kept their private conversations on calls they joined without their consent, including medical and financial discussions, used them to train its models and took voiceprints, and one plaintiff says learning this left him frustrated, embarrassed and stressed (plaintiffs' allegations in a pending suit; Otter denies them).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":7,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The court order says 'Plaintiffs are seven individuals from California, Illinois, and Washington state' who participated in meetings where the Otter Notetaker was allegedly used without their consent; each describes their own call in the consolidated complaint. They were not Otter account holders (one says only that to her knowledge she did not create an account), so they are counted as other people. The proposed class members are not counted. Documented minimum 7.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454675/gov.uscourts.cand.454675.68.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Order granting motion to dismiss in part, In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, No. 5:25-cv-06911-EKL (N.D. Cal.), 13 August 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:04:08.493618+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:54.438217+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["otter-ai","ai-notetaker","meeting-transcription","privacy","wiretap","bipa","voiceprint","training-data","class-action","non-user"]},{"id":"2026-england-gemini-meet-notetaker-kept-transcribing-prospects-after-host-left-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'My boss was in a meeting with a prospective client and his business partner'; 'Gemini Notetaker was on.'; 'my boss said goodbye and left the meeting, and the two business partners stayed on the call to discuss the proposal and the other agencies they were looking at.'; 'What they didn't know was that Gemini was still taking notes'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'it was on meet.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"During a Google Meet pitch with Gemini note-taking on, the agency's boss left at the end, the prospective client's two business partners stayed on the call to discuss the proposal and competing agencies, and Gemini kept taking notes of that discussion.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account; the poster does not say they attended the meeting and describes reading the conversation in the notes and transcript."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'My boss sent me the notes and transcript from the meeting to create a follow-up deck'; 'They named the other agency they were looking at and talked about personal details of who they spoke to specifically on the call.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The boss sent the poster the notes and transcript to build a follow-up deck from them; the partners had named a competing agency and talked about personal details of the people they had spoken to.","causal_attribution":"Poster's account of what they received and were asked to do."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I assumed the notetaker stops when the person who activates them leaves'; 'I don't think they were aware because the things they spoke about were very in detail and slightly scathing towards my boss' proposal.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The poster believes the partners did not know they were still being transcribed; the poster says they had assumed the note-taker stops when the person who started it leaves.","causal_attribution":"The poster's inference from the content of the discussion; commenters disputed it, arguing Meet notifies all participants."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Google Meet informs all meeting participants that notes are being taken and the pencil icon appears on all participants' screens.'; 'The meeting organizer and participants internal to the host’s organization can start or stop notes.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Google's help page says Meet informs all participants when notes are being taken, shows a pencil icon on all participants' screens, and lets only the organizer and participants internal to the host's organization start or stop notes.","causal_attribution":"General product documentation; it does not establish what the partners saw in this meeting."}],"effects":[{"label":"two prospective clients' private discussion after the host left the call was transcribed and summarised without their apparent knowledge","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the notes, including a named competing agency and personal details, were passed to agency staff to shape a follow-up pitch","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1wsd4ul/my_boss_recorded_a_transcript_of_a_meeting/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-29: full self-text retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID. The poster handle is not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-meet-notetaker-poster"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1wsd4ul/my_boss_recorded_a_transcript_of_a_meeting/pckanew/","kind":"forum_comment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The poster's own reply in the thread (archive API, 2026-09-29); a near-identical second reply (pckasgw) adds 'it was on meet.'","independence_group":"reddit-meet-notetaker-poster"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1wsd4ul/my_boss_recorded_a_transcript_of_a_meeting/pckasgw/","kind":"forum_comment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The poster's second reply, stating the call was on Google Meet (archive API, 2026-09-29).","independence_group":"reddit-meet-notetaker-poster"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://support.google.com/meet/answer/14754931?hl=en","kind":"company_documentation","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Google Meet Help page for \"Take notes for me\", fetched 2026-09-29 (200). Describes the feature in general; it does not address this meeting.","independence_group":"google-meet-help"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether the partners saw or understood Meet's note-taking notice after the host left.","The date of the meeting and the partners' location.","Whether the follow-up deck was made or the prospective client learned of the transcript.","Where the call participants were located."],"geography":{"basis":"The poster titles the post '(England)', answering the subreddit's instruction to say whether the poster is in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland; that locates the poster and the law they ask about, not the call. The post does not say where the boss or the prospective clients were during the Google Meet call. Unknown after review.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter's public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of an AI note-taker capturing and summarising people who were not its users, with the notes then used commercially, described with attribution and without corroboration. Google's documentation of participant notification is included as context. No handle, company or client name is recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The poster names Gemini note-taking in a Google Meet call as the tool that kept producing notes and a transcript after the host left; Google's help page documents the feature. No notes or screenshots were published.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"First-person forum account: an agency employee in England says Gemini note-taking in Google Meet kept transcribing two prospective clients after the agency's boss left the call, and that the boss passed their private post-meeting discussion to staff to shape a follow-up pitch","summary":"In a public post to r/LegalAdviceUK on 28 September 2026, an employee of a marketing agency in England writes that their boss pitched a prospective client and the client's business partner on a Google Meet call with Gemini note-taking switched on. After the boss said goodbye and left, the two business partners stayed on the call to discuss the proposal and the other agencies they were considering, and Gemini kept taking notes. The boss then sent the employee the notes and transcript, which named a competing agency and included 'personal details of who they spoke to specifically on the call', and asked for a follow-up deck built on what the partners liked and disliked. The poster believes the partners did not know they were still being transcribed. Google's help page says Meet tells all participants when notes are being taken; whether the partners noticed is not known. The account is uncorroborated.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-09-28","aiSystem":"Gemini note-taking in Google Meet ('Gemini Notetaker' in the poster's words; Google's help page calls the feature \"Take notes for me\")","aiProduct":"Gemini note-taking in Google Meet","aiCompany":"Google","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"An agency employee reports that Gemini note-taking in Google Meet kept transcribing two prospective clients' private discussion after the agency's host left the call, and that the boss passed the notes, including a named competing agency and personal details, to staff to shape a follow-up pitch; the poster believes the partners were unaware (first-person account, uncorroborated).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people: 'the two business partners' who stayed on the call and whose discussion was transcribed. They were not the users of the note-taker (the agency's boss was). The poster, who reports discomfort at being asked to use the notes, is not counted. Exact 2.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"assistant","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1wsd4ul/my_boss_recorded_a_transcript_of_a_meeting/","primarySourceLabel":"r/LegalAdviceUK, 28 September 2026: \"My boss recorded a transcript of a meeting without consent (England)\" (public first-person post)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T03:21:48.445579+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:36.507533+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","gemini","google-meet","meeting-notetaker","transcription","privacy","work","made-claim-about"]},{"id":"2026-abc-ai-medical-scribe-false-drug-use-record","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'she was asked whether she consented to having the appointment transcribed by artificial intelligence (AI)'; 'with the AI scribe making up the serious but false claim that'; 'it made up that I take [psychedelic] mushrooms. I have never done mushrooms in my life'; 'only picked up the mistake after her kidney stone surgery in March, when she read the post-operative letter her specialist sent to her GP'; 'micro-dosed mushrooms and that could be the reason for prior bleeding around the kidneys'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The patient consented to AI transcription of her first urology appointment; after her March 2026 kidney-stone surgery she found that the post-operative letter to her GP stated she micro-dosed mushrooms and that this could explain earlier bleeding around the kidneys, a claim she says is false.","causal_attribution":"Patient's account to ABC; the attribution of the false entry to the AI scribe is hers and ABC's framing."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I was gobsmacked and in tears'; 'was particularly stressed as she was receiving workers' compensation and felt any mention of illegal drugs on her medical record could impact her case'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"She reported distress and feared the entry could affect her workers' compensation case.","causal_attribution":"Patient's account."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the urologist sent a letter apologising'; 'Please be assured that we take the accuracy of our documentation very seriously, and we are truly sorry that this occurred'; 'it appeared to be from an error during the \"dictation or transcription process\"'; 'The urologist corrected the correspondence and in her letter said she would review how AI was used in her practice'; 'The doctor did not provide any responses to the ABC's questions about what changes, if any, have been made since'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"After her complaint the urologist apologised in writing, said the cause could not be determined but appeared to be an error in the dictation or transcription process, corrected the correspondence and said she would review her use of AI; she did not answer ABC's questions about changes made.","causal_attribution":"Doctor's letter as quoted by ABC; the doctor does not confirm the scribe as the origin."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'AHPRA, said clinicians must always check all output from an AI scribe for accuracy to ensure they meet their professional obligations'; 'said it was clear her doctor did not do this'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"AHPRA told ABC that clinicians must always check all output from an AI scribe for accuracy; the patient said it was clear her doctor had not.","causal_attribution":"Regulator comment and patient's view; context for the case."}],"effects":[{"label":"a false claim of psychedelic-mushroom use entered the patient's medical record and reached her GP; distress and fear for her workers' compensation case","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the correspondence was corrected and the doctor apologised after the patient complained","claim_id":"c3","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-14/ai-medical-scribe-error-leaves-patient-devastated/107031672","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-09-20 (HTTP 200; saved body 402,866 bytes). Feature by the ABC Specialist Reporting Team based on the patient's interview and the letters she received, plus regulator and peak-body comment.","independence_group":"abc-news-2026-08-14"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["health"],"unknowns":["The AI scribe product and vendor are not named.","The location of the clinic and the patient's residence are not stated.","The date of the appointment at which the transcription was made is not stated. The report gives the surgery as 'in March' without a year; 2026 is taken from the 14 August 2026 publication date.","Whether the false claim originated in the scribe's output or in a later dictation or editing step is not established; the doctor's letter says the cause could not be determined.","What changes the practice made afterwards are not reported."],"geography":{"basis":"No inspected source states where the appointment or the patient is located. The ABC report frames the case within Australian regulation (AHPRA, RACGP, TGA) and quotes Australian bodies, but does not locate the patient or the clinic, so the event and affected-person countries are left unknown rather than inferred from the publisher. No court proceeding.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an everyday-assistance and health case in which an AI system made a false claim about a person in her medical record, with reported distress and a corrected record. Single ABC News report read in full; claims recorded as reported and attributed to the patient and the doctor's letter. The patient is named in the report but not in this record; the doctor and clinic are unnamed.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-20"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The patient told ABC that the appointment was transcribed by an AI scribe with her consent and that the false mushroom claim appeared in the resulting post-operative letter; the doctor's apology attributes the claim to an error during the 'dictation or transcription process' without confirming the scribe as the origin. The product is not named. Single ABC report.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Reported by ABC News (Australia): an AI scribe used at a urology appointment inserted a false claim that the patient took psychedelic mushrooms into her record; the error reached her GP in a post-operative letter and was corrected only after she complained","summary":"A patient who consented to having her first urology appointment transcribed by an artificial-intelligence scribe discovered, after her kidney-stone surgery in March 2026, that the post-operative letter her specialist sent to her GP stated she micro-dosed psychedelic mushrooms and that this could explain earlier bleeding around the kidneys. She says she has never taken mushrooms. She was receiving workers' compensation and feared that any mention of illegal drugs on her medical record could affect her case. After she complained, the urologist sent a letter of apology saying the practice takes documentation accuracy seriously, that she could not determine how the claim came to be included but that it appeared to be an error during the 'dictation or transcription process', that the correspondence had been corrected and that she would review how AI was used in her practice. The doctor did not answer ABC's questions about what changes had been made. Australia's practitioner regulator AHPRA told ABC that clinicians must check all AI-scribe output; the patient says it was clear her doctor had not. The account is a single ABC News report (14 August 2026) based on the patient's interview and the letters she received; the scribe product and the clinic's location are not named.","incidentDate":"2026-03-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-08-14","aiSystem":"AI medical scribe (product not named in the report)","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI medical scribe","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The patient reports distress ('gobsmacked and in tears') and fear for her workers' compensation case after a false illegal-drug claim entered her medical record and was sent to her GP; the record was corrected after her complaint. The false entry is attributed by the patient to the AI scribe and by the doctor to an error in the dictation or transcription process.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One patient whose record carried the false claim (ABC report). The clinician used the AI tool, so the patient is counted as another person harmed rather than a participant user. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-14/ai-medical-scribe-error-leaves-patient-devastated/107031672","primarySourceLabel":"ABC News (Specialist Reporting Team), 14 August 2026: Error by AI scribe during medical appointment leaves patient devastated","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-20T03:28:12.119063+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:22.846812+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-scribe","medical-records","health","transcription-error","false-record","workers-compensation","abc-news"]},{"id":"2026-gisi-infopro-digital-creteil-ai-dismissals-suspended","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 12: 'ORDONNONS la suspension du projet de réorganisation de la Société GISI et du projet de licenciement collectif (des 8 secrétaires de rédaction) en découlant, incluant la suspension des processus de reclassement, jusqu'à ce qu'il soit procédé à la réalisation des tests en situation réelle et à l'élaboration de numéros 0'; 'PRONONÇONS à l'encontre de la société GISI une astreinte provisoire de 8 000 euros par jour de retard pendant une durée de trois mois'; 'FAIT AU PALAIS DE JUSTICE DE CRETEIL, le 15 septembre 2026'. Page 1: 'ORDONNANCE DU : 15 Septembre 2026', 'N° RG 26/00991'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"\"la suspension du projet de réorganisation (...) et du projet de licenciement collectif (des 8 secrétaires de rédaction)\"; \"par jour de retard sur trois mois\"; \"En revanche, les dommages et intérêts réclamés ont été rejetés.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"\"La justice a suspendu mardi en référé un projet de suppression de 8 postes au sein du groupe de presse Gisi (L'Usine nouvelle, LSA, L'Argus de l'assurance...), en lien avec le déploiement de l'intelligence artificielle\"; \"Il a par conséquent suspendu le plan jusqu'à la réalisation de tests complets. Contactée par l'AFP, la direction de Gisi a indiqué se réserver la possibilité de faire appel\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 15 September 2026 the Créteil judicial court, sitting in référé on the application of Gisi's CSE, ordered the suspension of Gisi's reorganisation project and of the resulting collective dismissal of the eight secrétaires de rédaction, including the redeployment processes, until real-situation tests and pilot issues confirm what share of sub-editor tasks the generative-AI tool can take over; it imposed a provisional penalty of 8,000 euros per day of delay for three months, refused the damages provision and awarded 2,000 euros in costs.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court order itself and confirmed by L'Informé and AFP, which each consulted the decision."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 11: 'représenter un risque grave et caractérisé sur la santé physique et mentale de plusieurs catégories de salariés de la société GISI'; 'la société GISI ne justifie pas de la mise en oeuvre des dispositifs de prévention du risque lié à l'introduction de la nouvelle technologie d'IA générative alors que dans le DUERP 2025 qu'elle produit (pièce 5) elle identifie 3 risques en lien avec l'introduction de l'IA (stress lié à l'insécurité de l'emploi lié à l'intelligence artificielle ; changements organisationnels liés à l'introduction de l'intelligence artificielle ; absence de repères liés à l'utilisation de l'IA et manque d'acculturation) mais ne les a pas côtés'. Page 10: 'sans aucune participation des salariés concernés, ni réalisation en situation réelle'; 'L'expert pronostique un risque d'intensification majeur du travail des rédacteurs'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"\"un risque grave et caractérisé sur la santé physique et mentale de plusieurs catégories de salariés\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"\"Le tribunal judiciaire de Créteil, saisi par le Comité social et économique (CSE) de Gisi\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"\"des risques de surcharge de travail (...) et une baisse de la qualité du travail fourni, de l'autonomie et du conflit de valeur, de la perte de sens et de l'altération du collectif\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judge found that implementing the generative-AI project and the dismissal of all sub-editor posts on an approximate evaluation, without real-situation testing or participation of the staff concerned, presented a serious and characterised risk to the physical and mental health of several categories of Gisi staff, and that Gisi had not shown prevention measures although its 2025 risk register listed three AI-related risks including stress linked to AI-related job insecurity.","causal_attribution":"The court's own finding; it concerns a risk to health created by the way the AI-based reorganisation was to be deployed, not an individually diagnosed injury."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Page 2: 'La société GISI emploie 127 salariés dont 92 journalistes'; 'un outil dénommé DIGI'; 'Le projet de la société GISI prévoit la suppression de 8 postes de secrétaires de rédaction (SR) et la création de 2 postes de chefs d'édition reprenant une partie des missions des SR, à savoir celles ne pouvant être automatisées par l'outil DIGI'; 'Le 4 mai 2026 le CSE était convié à une réunion dite R0 de présentation du projet'; 'Le 12 mai 2026 la société GISI convoquait le CSE à une première réunion d'information/consultation sur deux projets'; 'le CSE de la société GISI obtenait le 15 juillet 2025 une ordonnance de référé'; 'Par un arrêt du 21 mai 2026 la cour d'appel de Paris confirmait l'ordonnance de référé du 15 juillet 2025'. Page 10: 'la société GISI a évalué à environ 70 % la part des tâches des SR réalisées par l'outil IA'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"\"Au sein de Gisi, 8 postes de SR sont menacés\"; \"la société estimant que 70% des tâches des SR peuvent être réalisées par l'IA\"; \"Des reclassements ont été proposés à tous les secrétaires de rédaction\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"\"avait déjà contrainte à ouvrir un processus d\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Gisi (127 staff, 92 journalists) planned to remove its eight sub-editor posts and create two chef d'édition posts for the tasks its in-house generative-AI tool DIGI could not automate, estimating that the tool would perform about 70% of sub-editor tasks; the project was presented to the CSE on 4 May 2026 and consultation opened on 12 May 2026, after an earlier July 2025 order (confirmed on appeal on 21 May 2026) had required consultation before AI tools were used.","causal_attribution":"Facts recited in the court order and reported by AFP from the company."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"Les quelque 250 journalistes de ces 26 titres au total avaient lancé une grève au printemps pour s'opposer au projet de leur propriétaire de supprimer 19 postes de secrétaires de rédaction\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"\"Nous allons poursuivre les tests et faire des numéros complets\"; \"la direction de Gisi a indiqué se réserver la possibilité de faire appel\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"\"nous suspendons le projet le temps de finaliser ces tests\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Some 250 journalists across Infopro Digital's 26 titles struck in spring 2026 against the owner's plan to cut 19 sub-editor posts because of the AI deployment; after the order Gisi's president said the tests would continue with full pilot issues and that the company reserved the right to appeal.","causal_attribution":"AFP reporting of the strike and of management's reaction; L'Informé carries management's written reply."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"with five of the eight affected journalists having already received pre-dismissal interview letters\"; \"newsroom positions accompanied by training were offered to all affected editorial secretaries, although some declined them\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"Digital Watch, citing Stratégies, reports that five of the eight affected sub-editors had already received pre-dismissal interview letters and that Gisi had offered three chef d'édition roles and one technical editor-in-chief position, with newsroom posts offered to all affected sub-editors, some of whom declined.","causal_attribution":"Secondary summary attributing the detail to Stratégies (not readable from this host); reported only. Its count of three chef d'édition roles differs from the two posts in the order."}],"effects":[{"label":"eight sub-editors faced collective dismissal in favour of a generative-AI tool; a court found a serious risk to the physical and mental health of several categories of staff","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://linforme.files.sirius.press/files/1789566133007-SECURISE_ordonnance%20du%2015%20septembre%202026-2.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Court record: Tribunal judiciaire de Créteil, section des référés, ordonnance de référé of 15 September 2026, RG 26/00991, CSE de la société Gisi v. SAS Gisi, published by L'Informé (watermarked, 12 scanned pages without a text layer). Pages 1, 2, 10, 11 and 12 read visually in French on 2026-09-19; pages 3-9 not read. Quotations are transcribed from the page images.","independence_group":"tj-creteil-order"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.linforme.com/medias-culture/article/lsa-l-usine-nouvelle-la-justice-retoque-le-remplacement-des-journalistes-par-l-ia_8645.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read in French on 2026-09-19 (L'Informé, 15 Sep 2026, updated 16 Sep with Infopro Digital's reaction). The served page truncates the opening paragraph; the court's findings, the penalty, the union reaction and management's reply are readable. L'Informé published the order.","independence_group":"linforme"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.cbnews.fr/medias/justice-suspend-projet-suppressions-postes-liees-ia-chez-usine-nouvelle-lsa","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read in French on 2026-09-19 (CB News, 16 Sep 2026, AFP dispatch). AFP states it consulted the decision; carries Gisi president Isabelle André's comments.","independence_group":"afp"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.bfmtv.com/economie/emploi/vie-de-bureau/un-risque-grave-et-caracterise-sur-la-sante-physique-et-mentale-la-justice-suspend-un-projet-de-suppressions-de-postes-liees-a-l-ia-dans-les-medias-du-groupe-gisi_AD-202609160444.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read in French on 2026-09-19 (BFM Business with AFP, 16 Sep 2026). Same AFP dispatch with a definition of the sub-editor role.","independence_group":"afp"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.liberation.fr/economie/medias/la-justice-suspend-un-projet-de-suppressions-de-postes-liees-a-lia-dans-le-groupe-de-presse-infopro-digital-20260916_H7LH5VX6A5EDBFWSDNNM3DPB3U/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read in French on 2026-09-19 via the MSN content API copy (Libération, 16 Sep 2026, AFP). Same dispatch, adding the staff representative and SNJ-CGT reactions given to L'Informé.","independence_group":"afp"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://dig.watch/updates/french-court-ai-job-cuts-journalists","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-19 (Digital Watch Observatory, 17 Sep 2026). A secondary summary that attributes the pre-dismissal-letter and redeployment details to Stratégies, whose own article returns 403 to this host.","independence_group":"strategies-via-digital-watch"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether Gisi has appealed the order.","Whether the pre-dismissal procedure for the sub-editors has been formally withdrawn and whether all eight remain employed; individual health effects are not reported.","Pages 3-9 of the order (the parties' submissions) were not read.","The status of Groupe Moniteur's separate redundancy plan (PSE) covering the remaining sub-editor posts.","Digital Watch, citing Stratégies, reports three chef d'édition roles offered; the order and AFP record two chef d'édition posts. The difference (offers versus created posts, or a Stratégies error) is unresolved."],"geography":{"basis":"Gisi is registered in Créteil with its seat in Gentilly (Val-de-Marne) per the order; the staff work for its French titles; court: Tribunal judiciaire de Créteil.","court_countries":["FR"],"event_countries":["FR"],"affected_person_countries":["FR"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a work-lane case of an institutional AI decision with concrete consequences for identified staff: eight sub-editors were subject to a collective dismissal plan justified by a generative-AI tool, and a court found the deployment presented a serious and characterised risk to the physical and mental health of several categories of staff and suspended it. The court order (primary record), L'Informé and AFP copies read; the affected people are unnamed.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court order and AFP identify the generative-AI tool (DIGI) as the basis of the reorganisation and of the dismissal of the eight sub-editor posts, and the court's health-risk finding concerns deploying that tool without real-situation testing. The tool did not communicate with, decide about or depict the affected people; it was to take over their tasks, so none of the listed relations applies and the relation is recorded as unknown.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Créteil, France: a court suspended Gisi's (Infopro Digital) plan to cut eight sub-editor posts in favour of a generative-AI tool, finding a serious and characterised risk to the physical and mental health of several categories of staff","summary":"Gisi, the Infopro Digital subsidiary publishing L'Usine nouvelle, LSA and L'Argus de l'assurance (127 staff, 92 journalists), presented to its works council (CSE) on 4 May 2026 a reorganisation built around 'DIGI', an in-house generative-AI editorial tool, and on 12 May 2026 opened consultation on the reorganisation and on the resulting collective dismissal of its eight secrétaires de rédaction (sub-editors), to be replaced by two chefs d'édition, on the company's estimate that the tool would take over about 70% of sub-editor tasks. Some 250 journalists across Infopro Digital's 26 titles had struck in spring 2026 against a group-wide plan to cut 19 sub-editor posts, and according to Digital Watch (citing Stratégies) five of the eight Gisi sub-editors had received pre-dismissal interview letters. The CSE, relying on an expert report, went to the Créteil judicial court in July. On 15 September 2026 the référé judge found that deploying the plan without real-situation testing presented 'un risque grave et caractérisé sur la santé physique et mentale de plusieurs catégories de salariés', ordered the suspension of the reorganisation and the collective dismissal (including the redeployment processes) until real-situation tests and full pilot issues are produced, with a provisional penalty of 8,000 euros per day for three months, and refused the damages provision. Gisi said it would continue the tests and reserved the right to appeal.","incidentDate":"2026-05-04","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"product_change","reportedDate":"2026-09-15","aiSystem":"'DIGI', Gisi's in-house generative-AI editorial tool (transcription of interviews, drafting and correction help; planned spelling, grammar and typography correction, editorial-coherence and fact-reliability checks)","aiProduct":"DIGI editorial tool","aiCompany":"Gisi (Groupe Industrie Service Infos), a subsidiary of Infopro Digital (deployer of the in-house 'DIGI' generative-AI tool)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Eight sub-editors at Gisi faced collective dismissal because a generative-AI tool was to take over most of their tasks (five had received pre-dismissal interview letters, per Digital Watch citing Stratégies), and a court found that the plan, deployed without real-situation testing, presented a serious and characterised risk to the physical and mental health of several categories of staff; the court suspended the dismissals pending tests.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":8,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"The order suspends 'le projet de licenciement collectif (des 8 secrétaires de rédaction)' and AFP reports eight sub-editor posts threatened at Gisi; Digital Watch, citing Stratégies, says five of the eight had received pre-dismissal interview letters. The court's health-risk finding extends to 'plusieurs catégories de salariés' without a number. Eight counted plus unquantified others: partial.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"FR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://linforme.files.sirius.press/files/1789566133007-SECURISE_ordonnance%20du%2015%20septembre%202026-2.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Tribunal judiciaire de Créteil, ordonnance de référé of 15 September 2026 (RG 26/00991), CSE de la société Gisi v. SAS Gisi, as published by L'Informé","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-20T03:19:47.791082+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:37.711237+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","journalism","layoffs","generative-ai","newsroom-automation","france","creteil","labour-court","occupational-health","institutional-use"]}]}