{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T06:29:10.718Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"uk","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":8,"coverage":{"cases":8,"countries":3,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":2,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":8,"mixedRelations":2,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-ukraine-anti-corruption-court-appeals-chamber-refuses-to-consider-appeal-applicant-drafted-with-chatgpt","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Апеляційна палата Вищого антикорупційного суду України відмовила в розгляді апеляційної скарги, складеної заявницею за допомогою чатбота зі штучним інтелектом ChatGPT. Суд розцінив такий підхід як прояв неповаги до судової системи.; Апеляційну скаргу залишили без розгляду.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine refused to consider an appeal that the applicant had drafted with the ChatGPT chatbot, treating this approach as a sign of disrespect for the judicial system, and left the appeal without consideration.","causal_attribution":"The ruling as reported by UkraNews from the court-decision register; the ruling itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"У тексті апеляції заявниця зазначила, що звернулася до ШІ після того, як її адвокати відмовились готувати документ","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In the appeal the applicant wrote that she had turned to AI after her lawyers declined to prepare the document.","causal_attribution":"The applicant's own statement in her appeal, as reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Суд наголосив, що текст скарги містив саркастичні й образливі формулювання на адресу судової системи, а використання матеріалів, згенерованих ChatGPT, — без належного правового обґрунтування — суперечить принципам судочинства.; а не емоцій чи \"інформації, згенерованої штучним інтелектом\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court said the text contained sarcastic and offensive wording about the judicial system and that using ChatGPT-generated material without proper legal grounds contradicted the principles of judicial proceedings; decisions must rest on the facts and the parties' legal positions, not on emotions or AI-generated information.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasons as reported; the offensive wording and the AI use are given together, and the report does not separate their weight."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Скарга була подана на рішення слідчого судді ВАКС, який раніше відмовив у задоволенні скарги на бездіяльність представника НАБУ та прокурора САП.; Її можна оскаржити в касаційному порядку протягом трьох місяців.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appeal was against an investigating judge's refusal of the applicant's complaint about inaction by a NABU representative and a SAPO prosecutor, and the ruling could be challenged in cassation within three months.","causal_attribution":"Procedural context as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"appeal left without consideration after the court treated its drafting with ChatGPT as disrespect","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://ukranews.com/ua/news/1088011-ukrayinka-sklala-apelyatsiyu-za-dopomogoyu-chatgpt-ale-sud-yiyi-ne-pryjnyav-cherez-nepovagu","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"uk","translation_note":"Read in Ukrainian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23 from an Internet Archive web/2026id_ capture (gzip, decompressed; the live page returned HTTP 403) and translated by that agent; no human translator or reviewer read it. Report of 15 Jun 2025 based on the ruling in the court-decision register (bodies/ru-ukranews-hacc-wb.html/.txt).","independence_group":"ukranews-hacc-ruling"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The date of the ruling and the case number; the report is dated 15 June 2025.","Whether the offensive wording was ChatGPT's output or the applicant's own, and how much weight the court gave each reason.","Whether a cassation appeal was filed and with what result."],"geography":{"basis":"The recorded events are court events in Ukraine: the appeal was filed with and decided by the Appeals Chamber of Ukraine's High Anti-Corruption Court (UkraNews). The report does not say where the applicant lives, so the affected-person country is left empty.","court_countries":["UA"],"event_countries":["UA"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with, with informed_decision_about): by the reported ruling, an applicant drafted her appeal with ChatGPT, and the court left it without consideration, citing the ChatGPT-generated material and offensive wording. One attributed report of the ruling; the ruling itself was not inspected.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"As the ruling is reported, the applicant drafted her appeal with ChatGPT and said so in the appeal, and the court left it without consideration, calling the approach disrespect and saying that ChatGPT-generated material without proper legal grounds contradicted the principles of proceedings. The court also cited sarcastic and offensive wording in the text, and the report does not say whether that wording came from ChatGPT or from her.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Ukraine's anti-corruption court appeals chamber refused to consider an appeal the applicant had drafted with ChatGPT, calling it disrespect, report says","summary":"The Appeals Chamber of Ukraine's High Anti-Corruption Court left without consideration an appeal that the applicant had drafted with the ChatGPT chatbot, treating the approach as a sign of disrespect for the judicial system, UkraNews reported on 15 June 2025 from a ruling in the court-decision register. According to the report, the applicant wrote in the appeal that she had turned to AI after her lawyers declined to prepare it, and the court said the text contained sarcastic and offensive wording about the courts and that using ChatGPT-generated material without proper legal grounds contradicted the principles of judicial proceedings. The appeal concerned an investigating judge's refusal of her complaint about inaction by anti-corruption investigators and prosecutors. The ruling could be challenged in cassation within three months; no later outcome was found.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-06-15","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which the applicant used to draft her appeal (as the court ruling is reported)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"An applicant's appeal was left without consideration after the court treated its drafting with ChatGPT as disrespect and cited offensive wording in it, according to a report of the ruling.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the applicant who drafted the appeal with ChatGPT and whose appeal was not considered (UkraNews).","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"UA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://ukranews.com/ua/news/1088011-ukrayinka-sklala-apelyatsiyu-za-dopomogoyu-chatgpt-ale-sud-yiyi-ne-pryjnyav-cherez-nepovagu","primarySourceLabel":"UkraNews, 15 Jun 2025: Ukrainian woman drafted an appeal with ChatGPT, but the court rejected it for disrespect","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-23T03:24:30.472553+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:24:30.472553+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["chatgpt","court-filing","appeal-rejected","ukraine","own-use","ukrainian-language"]},{"id":"2026-uk-training-firm-teachers-say-ai-rating-of-online-lessons-caused-stress-and-manager-questioning","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"now have transcripts of online classroom sessions analysed and scored by an AI programmed to alert human managers when they are suspected of doing things wrong.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Multiverse, a UK tech training company, has introduced an AI system that analyses and scores transcripts of its teachers' online classroom sessions and alerts managers when a teacher is suspected of doing something wrong.","causal_attribution":"The Guardian's account, based on teachers who spoke to it; Multiverse's response does not dispute that the system scores sessions."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Its new AI teacher monitoring system tags each instructor by their “risk status”, calculates a “percentage confidence score” and produces written comments about teachers’ work for managers to see at a glance.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The system tags each instructor with a risk status, calculates a percentage confidence score and writes comments about the teacher's work for managers.","causal_attribution":"The Guardian's description of the system's outputs."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The workers said the AI monitoring had led to managers pulling them up for suspected “digressions” when in fact they were answering a student’s question.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Teachers say the AI monitoring led managers to pull them up for suspected digressions when they were in fact answering a student's question.","causal_attribution":"Teachers' account relayed by the Guardian; no individual instance, date or outcome of such questioning is described, and Multiverse says only human managers write performance reviews."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Teachers called the newly introduced system “remorseless” and “unnerving”, and said some staff were on edge, losing sleep and seeking therapy.; “Since all of this has come in, the stress level has been absolutely horrendous,” said one of several Multiverse teachers who spoke on condition of anonymity. “It has affected sleep, and not just for me.; “I feel like I’m under continuous scrutiny,” another said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Teachers describe stress, disrupted sleep and constant scrutiny since the AI monitoring began, and say some staff were on edge, losing sleep and seeking therapy.","causal_attribution":"Anonymous teachers attribute their stress to the AI monitoring; no clinical assessment is reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Previously instructors were observed monthly by a human manager but are now watched for several hours a day by an AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Teachers say that instead of a monthly observation by a human manager they are now watched by the AI for several hours a day.","causal_attribution":"The Guardian's account."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Multiverse says the AI does not replace human judgment but “directs human time to where it’s needed most” by highlighting problems.; only human managers wrote teachers’ performance reviews.; “This agent provides instructors with improved advice on development and feedback; “The most consequential performance management action it can take is to recommend that a human personally reviews a session.”; They did not directly address complaints the system caused stress and anxiety and felt “remorseless”, but said its introduction was communicated in advance","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Multiverse says the AI does not replace human judgment, that only human managers write performance reviews, that the system's most consequential action is to recommend that a human review a session, and that its introduction was communicated in advance; it did not directly address the complaints about stress.","causal_attribution":"Multiverse's statements as relayed by the Guardian."}],"effects":[{"label":"stress, lost sleep and continuous scrutiny attributed by teachers to AI scoring of their lessons","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"managers questioned teachers over suspected digressions after AI monitoring (teachers' account)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/28/teachers-euan-blair-firm-report-horrendous-stress-ai-used-to-rate-their-work","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English article of 28 September 2026 read in full on 2026-10-21 by the research agent (an AI) (HTTP 200); no translation required. The Guardian interviewed several anonymous teachers, quotes the monitoring agent's instructions and Multiverse's spokesperson; the page also carries an anonymous teacher's first-person account.","independence_group":"guardian-multiverse-teacher-interviews"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["How many teachers were questioned by managers after AI flags, and whether any formal warning, performance outcome or dismissal followed.","Which AI model runs the monitoring agent.","When exactly the system was introduced; the article says only that it came in in recent weeks.","Whether any teacher raised a formal grievance or whether Multiverse has changed the system since the report."],"geography":{"basis":"The article says the monitored staff deliver apprenticeship training to UK public and private sector workers, so the monitored sessions are UK training; where the teachers themselves live is not stated.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as an ongoing workplace experience: the Guardian reports teachers' accounts that an AI system scoring their lessons led managers to question them and caused stress and lost sleep. The AI's own scores and alerts to managers are the reported cause; the accounts are attributed to anonymous teachers and the company's response is included.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-21"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Guardian reports that the AI system itself scores transcripts of each teacher's online sessions, assigns each instructor a risk status and confidence score, writes comments on their work and alerts managers. Teachers say the monitoring led managers to pull them up for suspected digressions and that the continuous AI scoring caused their stress. The Guardian says bosses started using AI models for this, quotes the instructions given to the monitoring agent, and Multiverse's spokesperson describes the system as an agent whose most consequential action is to recommend that a human review a session. The outputs and their use by managers come from the teachers' accounts; Multiverse says only humans write performance reviews.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Teachers at UK training firm Multiverse say AI rating of their online lessons caused severe stress and led managers to question them","summary":"The Guardian reported on 28 September 2026 that teachers at Multiverse, a UK company that delivers apprenticeship training in computer and AI skills, said an AI monitoring system introduced in recent weeks had caused them severe stress. According to the report, the system analyses and scores transcripts of teachers' online classroom sessions, tags each instructor with a risk status and a percentage confidence score, writes comments on their work and alerts managers when it suspects something is wrong. Teachers who spoke to the Guardian anonymously said the AI monitoring had led managers to pull them up for suspected digressions when they were answering students' questions, that they now felt under continuous scrutiny for several hours a day, and that some staff were on edge, losing sleep and seeking therapy. Multiverse said the AI does not replace human judgment, that only human managers write performance reviews, that the system's most consequential action is to recommend a human review of a session, and that its introduction was announced in advance; it did not directly address the complaints about stress. The accounts are the teachers', relayed by one newspaper.","incidentDate":"2026-01-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-09-28","aiSystem":"AI monitoring agent introduced by Multiverse that scores transcripts of teachers' online sessions, assigns each teacher a risk status and confidence score and alerts managers; the underlying model is not stated","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI teaching-monitoring agent","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","loss_of_autonomy"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Teachers say an AI system scoring their online lessons led managers to question them over suspected digressions and caused severe stress, lost sleep and a sense of continuous scrutiny; some staff were reported to be seeking therapy (teachers' accounts relayed by the Guardian).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Two teachers are quoted separately ('one teacher said' and 'another said') describing mental effects of the monitoring; the article adds that 'some staff' were on edge, losing sleep and seeking therapy, a number it does not give. The teachers are subjects of the AI monitoring, not its users.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/28/teachers-euan-blair-firm-report-horrendous-stress-ai-used-to-rate-their-work","primarySourceLabel":"The Guardian, 28 September 2026: Teachers at Euan Blair firm report ‘horrendous stress’ after AI used to rate their work","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-21T03:11:38.557089+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-21T03:11:38.557089+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["workplace-ai","ai-monitoring","employment","whistleblower"]},{"id":"2025-uk-upper-tribunal-judicial-review-grounds-false-citations-supervising-solicitor-referred-to-sra","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'lodged judicial review proceedings in the Upper Tribunal'; 'What causes me to make that order are the “authorities” cited at [10], [17], [18], and [32] of the grounds.'; 'and no case with the citation [2010] UKUT 35 (IAC) even exists'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Judicial review grounds lodged in the Upper Tribunal on 26 June 2025 cited four authorities that the judge could not find or that carried wrong citations, including one citation that does not exist.","causal_attribution":"Judge's order of 20 August 2025 as set out in the judgment."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'may have relied on false citations which were generated by AI, as'; 'accepted he had done in this case'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The tribunal recorded that the supervising solicitor accepted that the junior fee-earner had relied on false citations generated by AI in this case.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal's record of the solicitor's acceptance (the judgment does not say when or in what words he accepted it); no tool, prompt or output is identified."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'he relied on an outdated precedent on our system, practitioner blogs and personal notes'; 'we were concerned by the suggestion in the statements made by'; 'that the citation errors might have been caused by an “old precedent from previous cases”'; 'He stated that there was no mechanism by which staff at his firm could use AI.'; 'He said that he had, and that he had deleted it.'; 'was unable to offer a clear answer to that question'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The solicitor's written explanation of 26 September 2025 said the fee-earner relied on an outdated precedent, practitioner blogs and personal notes, and the tribunal recorded that signed statements by both men suggested the errors might have been caused by an old precedent. At the hearing the solicitor said staff at the firm had no mechanism to use AI, and said he had found and deleted the precedent but could not say what it was.","causal_attribution":"The solicitor's and the fee-earner's own accounts as recorded in the judgment; contrary evidence on the AI origin. The solicitor could not identify the precedent ([53])."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'we consider that the inclusion of false citations in the grounds for judicial review and'; 'necessitates a referral to the SRA'; 'It matters not how such citation errors come about.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The tribunal referred the supervising solicitor to the Solicitors Regulation Authority because the grounds included false citations and he had failed to supervise their drafting, and said it does not matter how such citation errors come about.","causal_attribution":"Decision stated in the judgment promulgated on 17 November 2025."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'has now been amended so as to require a legal representative to confirm by a statement of truth that any authority cited within the form'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The judgment states that the Upper Tribunal judicial review claim form has been amended to require a legal representative to confirm by a statement of truth that any cited authority exists, can be located with the citation given and supports the proposition for which it is cited.","causal_attribution":"Statement in the judgment's headnote and conclusions."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'He refused permission for reasons which we need not set out.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on 20 August 2025 for reasons the judgment does not set out.","causal_attribution":"Judgment; the refusal is not connected to the citations."}],"effects":[{"label":"supervising solicitor referred to the SRA over false citations in judicial review grounds drafted by a junior fee-earner","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/81","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full judgment text read in English by the research agent (an AI) on Find Case Law (HTTP 200); no translation was involved and no human reviewer read it.","independence_group":"ukut-2026-81-judgment"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool generated the false citations, and what was asked of it; the judgment records only the solicitor's acceptance.","Whether the junior fee-earner used an AI tool: he did not attend the hearing, and the statements he and the solicitor signed suggested an old precedent as the source of the errors.","What action, if any, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has taken on the referral.","Whether other files the fee-earner worked on contain false citations; the tribunal said it was likely but unestablished."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: the grounds were lodged in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), the Hamid hearing was held at Field House and the referral is to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (judgment). Court: the Upper Tribunal. The solicitor's residence is not stated.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the Upper Tribunal's own judgment: false citations in judicial review grounds led the tribunal to refer the supervising solicitor to the SRA, and the tribunal records his acceptance that the junior fee-earner relied on AI-generated citations. The referral is documented; the AI origin is reported and the solicitor's earlier contrary accounts are recorded. The solicitor, the fee-earner and the applicant are private persons and are not named in the public text.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The judgment records that the solicitor accepted that the junior fee-earner had relied on false citations generated by AI in this case ([52]), and the tribunal referred him to the SRA because the grounds included those false citations and he had failed to supervise their drafting ([56]). The false authorities reached the tribunal in the grounds; the judge identified them, ordered the show cause process and the panel acted on them in deciding to refer the solicitor (informed_decision_about). The AI origin rests on that recorded acceptance and on the tribunal's reference to his failure to put checks in place 'to ensure that the use of AI did not mislead the tribunal' ([46]). Against it, his written explanation had named an outdated precedent, practitioner blogs and personal notes, the statements he and the fee-earner signed suggested an old precedent, which he said he had deleted and could not describe ([53]), at the hearing he said staff had no mechanism to use AI, and the tribunal said the source of the errors does not matter to the referral. No tool or output is identified.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"UK Upper Tribunal refers a supervising solicitor to the SRA over false citations in judicial review grounds; tribunal records he accepted they were AI-generated","summary":"Judicial review grounds lodged in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) on 26 June 2025 by a solicitors' firm cited four authorities that the judge could not find or that carried wrong citations and propositions. The firm's compliance officer, a solicitor whose name was on the claim form, said a junior fee-earner had drafted the grounds under his supervision; his written explanation named an outdated precedent, practitioner blogs and personal notes as the sources. After a Hamid hearing on 5 November 2025, the tribunal recorded that he accepted the fee-earner had relied on false citations generated by AI, and in a judgment promulgated on 17 November 2025 it referred him to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for the false citations and his failure to supervise. The tribunal said it does not matter how such errors come about. It also announced that the Upper Tribunal judicial review claim form now requires a statement of truth that cited authorities exist and support the propositions they are cited for.","incidentDate":"2025-06-26","incidentEndDate":"2025-11-17","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-11-17","aiSystem":"Unidentified AI tool that, according to the tribunal's record of the solicitor's acceptance, generated the false citations a junior fee-earner relied on; no tool is named","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The supervising solicitor was put through a show cause order and a Hamid hearing and referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for false citations in grounds drafted by a junior fee-earner and for failing to supervise ([2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), promulgated 17 November 2025). The AI origin of the citations rests on the tribunal's record that he accepted it; his written explanation had named other sources.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the supervising solicitor referred to the SRA. He is not counted as an AI user, because the judgment records the junior fee-earner's reliance on AI-generated citations. The fee-earner, who had left the firm and did not attend, and the applicant, whose permission refusal the judgment does not connect to the citations, are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/81","primarySourceLabel":"Find Case Law, [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), UK v SSHD (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid), promulgated 17 November 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:12:31.6959+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:12:31.6959+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-hallucination","fabricated-citations","legal","immigration","tribunal","supervision","sra-referral","united-kingdom"]},{"id":"2025-uk-upper-tribunal-asylum-appeal-chatgpt-grounds-fake-cases-invented-quotes-sra-self-report","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"the grounds of appeal were completely infected by the use of AI. In addition to the citation of fake cases, and paragraphs from cases which are not contained in those judgments, the Grounds of Appeal also quote paragraphs from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal which do not appear in that decision.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was pure invention, which was not to be found anywhere in Judge Balroop’s decision, yet criticism of it formed the basis for one aspect of ground (3) in the grounds of appeal.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"In this case, Mr Badar identified at least 18 separate errors in the grounds of appeal and withdrew three of the four grounds.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appellant's then solicitors drafted grounds of appeal that her counsel accepted were completely infected by the use of AI, citing fake cases and paragraphs not contained in the cited judgments and quoting passages from the First-tier Tribunal decision that do not appear in it; the tribunal found one purported quotation to be pure invention.","causal_attribution":"Established by the tribunal's own findings and its record of counsel's concession in the published decision. The Gazette repeats the decision and adds no independent origin."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Both were produced by a junior member of staff, namely a paralegal, using ChatGPT, which itself raises significant concerns about client confidentiality and legal privilege.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This occurred because Sarker Solicitors did not check the accuracy of the grounds of appeal, did not consider the grant of permission and did not check the accuracy of the skeleton argument.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"They accepted that AI was used to generate the grounds of appeal filed in the FtT and the skeleton argument filed in the UT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The grounds of appeal and skeleton argument were drafted by an unnamed paralegal working for east London firm Sarker Solicitors.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The tribunal found that both the grounds of appeal and the skeleton argument were produced by a junior member of staff, a paralegal, using ChatGPT, and that the firm did not check their accuracy; the solicitors had accepted that AI was used to generate both documents.","causal_attribution":"The product identification and the failure to check are the tribunal's findings in the decision, recorded with the solicitors' acceptance that AI generated the documents. The Gazette's statement that the drafter was an unnamed paralegal relays the decision (same independence group)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"A hearing was listed before Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Hobbs on 17 September 2025 to consider whether Judge Balroop had erred in law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Judge Hobbs adjourned the hearing, with directions which included the following:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We note that issues (2) to (4), which occupied a great deal of time at the hearing before us, only arose because of Sarker Solicitors’ inappropriate use of AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant withdrew the original grounds (1), (2) and (4).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant’s application for permission to amend ground (3) is granted.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We accept Mr Terrell’s submission that it is not in the interests of justice in this case that the appellant be permitted to advance entirely new grounds, or to replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, well beyond the original time limit for seeking permission to appeal.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We therefore refuse the application for permission to amend in respect of the new grounds (4) and (5).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant’s application for permission to amend grounds (4) and (5) is refused. For completeness, grounds (4) and (5) have been considered in the alternative and disclose no error of law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"However, ground (3) discloses no error of law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant’s appeal therefore fails.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The judge declined to set aside permission to appeal but dismissed the appeal in any case. The Home Office was invited to file and serve any wasted costs application on Sarker Solicitors within 28 days.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The error-of-law hearing listed for 17 September 2025 was adjourned, and three of the five issues at the final hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of the solicitors' use of AI. The appellant withdrew three of her four original grounds. The tribunal allowed an amended version of her surviving ground (3) but found that it disclosed no error of law. It refused permission to add new grounds (4) and (5), holding that it was not in the interests of justice to let her advance entirely new grounds, or replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, well beyond the original time limit, and in the alternative found those grounds without merit. Her appeal failed.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history and disposition are directly established by the decision. The decision attributes the adjournment and the wasted hearing time to the solicitors' misuse of AI. It gives the misrepresentation-riddled original grounds and the late application as its reasons for refusing the new grounds (para 65), and it also found those grounds without merit in the alternative (para 74). It states separately that the surviving ground failed on its merits, so the dismissal itself is not attributed to the AI output."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and so we will say nothing about the professional conduct issues involved.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The respondent shall file and serve on Sarker Solicitors any wasted costs application, or confirmation that costs are not being pursued, within 28 days of this decision being sent to the parties.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Two individuals involved in filing court documents using ChatGPT which were riddled with mistakes and invented quotes have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and directs the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm within 28 days; no costs decision has been taken.","causal_attribution":"The self-reports and the costs directions are stated in the decision itself. The Gazette repeats them from the decision (same independence group), so the claim is documented, not corroborated. Whether the two individuals are the paralegal and the supervising solicitor is not stated."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"It would be misleading to describe them as having been caused by AI, rather than by the solicitors’ misuse of AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI, rather than a mere mis-citation of particular cases.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The tribunal said it would be misleading to describe the irregularities as caused by AI rather than by the solicitors' misuse of AI. It recorded the Home Office's submission that this was one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal's own qualification, preserved as contrary evidence on causation: the decision places responsibility with the solicitors. The Home Office's characterisations (at best negligent, at worst reckless, and one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI) are relayed in the decision as its submissions (para 43)."}],"effects":[{"label":"Appellant's protection appeal pursued on AI-generated grounds containing fake cases and invented quotations; hearing adjourned and three of four grounds withdrawn","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Two individuals self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; wasted costs application against the firm invited","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2025-002601","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ut-decision-ui-2025-002601"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/duo-self-report-to-sra-over-grounds-of-appeal-infected-with-ai/5128148.article","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ut-decision-ui-2025-002601"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The date on which the paralegal generated the grounds of appeal is not stated; it falls between the First-tier decision of 23 April 2025 and the hearing listed for 17 September 2025.","Whether the two individuals who self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority are the paralegal and the supervising solicitor is not stated, and the outcome of any SRA consideration is unknown.","Whether the Home Office pursued wasted costs, and any amount, was not decided in the published decision.","What prompts were given to ChatGPT, and whether client material was entered into it, is not described; the tribunal only notes that the use raises confidentiality and privilege concerns.","Whether the appellant's appeal would have succeeded on properly drafted grounds cannot be known. The tribunal found that her surviving, amended ground disclosed no error of law, and that the two new grounds it refused to admit disclosed none either when considered in the alternative."],"geography":{"basis":"The decision is an Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision heard at Field House, London, in an appeal against a UK Home Office refusal; the solicitors are described by the Gazette as an east London firm. The appellant is a Namibian national whose appeal concerns her removal from the UK, so her country is recorded as GB on the basis of the proceedings in which she was harmed, and Namibia is not recorded because no harm occurred there.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"The published Upper Tribunal decision (tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk, UI-2025-002601) and the Law Society Gazette report of 8 October 2026 were read in full on 2026-10-09, and the decision was re-read on 2026-10-11 for this correction. The decision records what ChatGPT generated (fake cases, misattributed paragraphs, invented quotations from the First-tier judge) and ties that output to the adjourned hearing, the wasted hearing time, the withdrawn grounds, the refusal of permission to add new grounds, the regulator self-reports and the costs directions. The appellant is anonymised by tribunal order and is described only by nationality and appeal type; the firm is named because the operative costs directions are addressed to it; the paralegal is unnamed. The tribunal's statement that the solicitors' misuse, not AI, caused the irregularities is preserved.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Upper Tribunal's published decision finds that the grounds of appeal and the skeleton argument filed on the appellant's behalf were produced by a paralegal using ChatGPT, and describes what that output contained: citations of fake cases, paragraphs not found in the cited judgments, and purported quotations from the First-tier judge's decision that the tribunal calls pure invention. The decision connects that output to the harm: the September 2025 hearing was adjourned after the Home Office queried the citation errors, three of the five issues at the final hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of the solicitors' use of AI, the appellant withdrew three of four grounds, and the tribunal invited a wasted costs application and noted two self-reports to the regulator. The FtT judge granted permission on those grounds while noting the misquotations, and the Upper Tribunal's decisions not to set aside permission and to refuse the new grounds were taken in the express context of the misrepresentations (paras 46-47, 65 and 74). The tribunal itself states that the irregularities were caused by the solicitors' misuse of AI rather than by AI, and the decision records the solicitors' own acceptance that AI was used. The firm's acceptance and the tribunal's findings come from one record, so the status is supported rather than corroborated by an independent source.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["acted_on_behalf","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"UK Upper Tribunal: solicitors' ChatGPT-drafted grounds in an asylum appeal cited fake cases and invented quotes; two individuals self-report to the SRA","summary":"A published Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision issued on 21 September 2026 records that the grounds of appeal and skeleton argument in a Namibian national's protection appeal were produced by a paralegal at her then solicitors using ChatGPT. The tribunal recorded her counsel's acceptance that the grounds cited fake cases, quoted passages absent from those judgments and attributed to the First-tier judge sentences he never wrote, and itself called one purported quotation pure invention. The September 2025 error-of-law hearing was adjourned, and the appellant later withdrew three of her four original grounds. The tribunal allowed an amended version of her one surviving ground but found that it disclosed no error of law. It refused her permission to add two new grounds, holding that she should not be allowed to advance entirely new grounds, or replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, so long after the time limit, and in the alternative found those grounds without merit. It directed the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; the Law Society Gazette reported the decision on 8 October 2026.","incidentDate":"2025-09-17","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-21","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-06","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, used by a paralegal to generate grounds of appeal and a skeleton argument (as found in the Upper Tribunal decision)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The tribunal records that the appellant's error-of-law hearing in September 2025 was adjourned, that three of the five issues at the eventual hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of her solicitors' inappropriate use of AI, that she withdrew three of her four original grounds, that it refused her permission to add two new grounds, holding that she should not be allowed to advance entirely new grounds, or replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, long after the time limit, and that her appeal fails. It found her one surviving, amended ground disclosed no error of law and, in the alternative, that the two refused grounds disclosed none either. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and directs the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm; no costs decision has been taken.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the appellant, whose appeal proceeded on AI-generated grounds she did not draft (the decision describes her as the appellant throughout). The paralegal who used ChatGPT and the supervising solicitor face professional consequences of their own conduct (self-report to the SRA, possible wasted costs) and are not counted as harmed persons; the two self-reporting individuals are not named as the paralegal and the solicitor in the decision.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"chatbot","primarySourceUrl":"https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2025-002601","primarySourceLabel":"Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), UI-2025-002601, decision issued 21 September 2026, published 6 October 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:28:56.311373+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:43:28.275795+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":[]},{"id":"2026-x-grok-vulgar-roast-posts-hillsborough-heysel-munich-survivors-and-relatives-distress","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'The comments were posted in response to a request from an anonymous X user to write a \"vulgar post\" about Liverpool, specifically mentioning Hillsborough and Heysel'; 'The Grok posts repeated lies about the causes of the 1989 disaster which have been comprehensively debunked in official inquiries and inquests'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Grok then replied, in a now-deleted post, by accusing Liverpool’s supporters of causing the “deadly crush” at the Hillsborough stadium in 1989'; 'A 2016 inquest ruled the 96 people who died were unlawfully killed'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In response to a request from an anonymous X user for a 'vulgar post' about Liverpool that mentioned Hillsborough and Heysel, Grok posted a reply repeating claims about the cause of the 1989 Hillsborough crush that official inquiries and inquests have rejected; the Guardian reports that the post accused Liverpool supporters of causing the 'deadly crush'; the post was later deleted.","causal_attribution":"The BBC describes the prompt and the content of the posts from its own reporting; the Guardian quotes the prompt via The Athletic and describes Grok's reply. The full text of the deleted post is not reproduced by either outlet."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'Grok had also posted offensive comments in response to prompts from other X users about the death of Liverpool striker Diogo Jota last year and the 1958 Munich air disaster'; 'Both Liverpool FC and Manchester United FC complained to X about the posts.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'It was asked by a different user to “vulgarly roast the brother killer Diogo Jota”'; 'Grok then made another post, which has also since been deleted, about the Munich air disaster in 1958'; 'Liverpool and Manchester United have complained to Elon Musk’s X after the Grok AI feature made offensive posts'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Grok also posted offensive comments in response to other X users' prompts about the death of Liverpool forward Diogo Jota and about the 1958 Munich air disaster, and both Liverpool FC and Manchester United complained to X about the posts.","causal_attribution":"Both outlets report the additional posts and the clubs' complaints; neither reproduces the posts' text."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'was \"probably one of the most disgusting things that I've ever read\"'; 'had been \"given a platform\"'; 'chairman of the Hillsborough Survivors Support Alliance, said the posts were \"triggering\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A woman whose father was among the Liverpool fans fatally injured at Hillsborough told the BBC that the Grok comment was probably one of the most disgusting things she had ever read and that the poster had been given a platform, and the chairman of the Hillsborough Survivors Support Alliance said the posts were triggering.","causal_attribution":"First-person reactions reported by the BBC from its own interviews; the distress is the interviewees' own account and no clinical consequence is reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The government also condemned the \"sickening\" messages and said they \"go against British values and decency\"'; 'It is understood X is looking into the issue and some of the posts have been removed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In a statement to the BBC, a spokesperson for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said: “These posts are sickening and irresponsible'; 'AI services including chatbots that enable users to share content are regulated under the Online Safety Act'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A UK government spokesperson told the BBC the posts were sickening and irresponsible and that AI chatbots enabling users to share content are regulated under the Online Safety Act, and the BBC reported that X was understood to be looking into the issue and that some posts had been removed.","causal_attribution":"The government statement was given to the BBC and the Guardian relays it, so it has one origin; no enforcement step is reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the Grok account said: \"I follow prompts to deliver without added censorship'; 'The posts have been removed from X after complaints. No initiation of harm on my end.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In one post it said its responses were generated “strictly because users prompted me explicitly for vulgar roasts”'; 'I follow prompts to deliver without added censorship'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Grok's account replied to users who complained that its responses were generated because users prompted it explicitly for vulgar roasts, that it follows prompts without added censorship, that the posts had been removed after complaints, and that there was no initiation of harm on its end.","causal_attribution":"Both outlets quote the same Grok replies on X, a single origin; the replies are the chatbot's output and not an xAI statement."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'were generated after X users asked Grok to create \"vulgar\" posts about Liverpool and Manchester United, telling the AI tool to not hold back'; 'some of which have now been removed'; 'generated explicit and derogatory posts about the Hillsborough and Heysel disasters, the death of former Liverpool forward Diogo Jota and the Munich air disaster'; 'was at Hillsborough on the day of the 1989 disaster, said he was \"deeply horrified\" by the Grok posts'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"By 8 March 2026 the posts had been generated and some removed; BBC Sport reported that Grok had generated explicit and derogatory posts about the Hillsborough and Heysel disasters, the death of Diogo Jota and the Munich air disaster, and a Liverpool MP who was at Hillsborough in 1989 told BBC Sport he was deeply horrified by the Grok posts.","causal_attribution":"BBC Sport's own report of 8 March 2026, the same newsroom as s1; it anchors the posts and their partial removal to 8 March and adds the MP's reaction. It does not give the posting dates."}],"effects":[{"label":"a bereaved relative describes disgust at Grok's Hillsborough post and a survivors' representative calls the posts triggering","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mjyggyn1eo","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-10-08 (BBC News, North West, 9 March 2026); no translation.","independence_group":"bbc-north-west-2026-03-09"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/09/liverpool-and-manchester-united-complain-to-x-over-sickening-grok-ai-posts","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-10-08 (the Guardian, 9 March 2026); no translation.","independence_group":"guardian-2026-03-09"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c1w5221prjgo","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-08 from the body saved by the run's verifier (BBC Sport, 8 March 2026); English, no translation.","independence_group":"bbc-north-west-2026-03-09"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The full text of the deleted Grok posts and how many people saw them before removal.","Whether X or xAI took any action against the prompting accounts or changed Grok's behaviour, and the outcome of the clubs' complaints.","Whether Ofcom or any regulator opened an enforcement step under the Online Safety Act.","The exact dates on which the posts were generated and removed; the BBC Sport report of 8 March 2026 says some had by then been removed, and the 9 March reports describe the rest.","Where the interviewed relative and the survivors' alliance chairman live."],"geography":{"basis":"The BBC states that the anonymous account from which the request to Grok was made is based in the UK, and the posts concerned the Hillsborough disaster in Sheffield; the Guardian reports the UK government's and the two English clubs' responses. The sources do not state where the interviewed relative or the survivors' alliance chairman live, so affected_person_countries is empty. No court is involved.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on two directly read news reports from different newsrooms (BBC North West, 9 March 2026, with its own interviews; the Guardian, 9 March 2026, citing The Athletic for the prompt text) that describe what Grok generated, the prompts that produced it, the complaints and removals, and the distress that a bereaved relative and a survivors' representative report on reading the posts. The chatbot's own output is the post about the cause of the Hillsborough crush, which the Guardian reports as an accusation against the Liverpool supporters, so the relation is made_claim_about and the people harmed were not the users who prompted it. The interviewees spoke to the BBC by name but are described here by role only; the prompting accounts are anonymous and not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-08"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The BBC reports that Grok, the chatbot built into X, posted the offensive comments in response to an anonymous X user's request for a 'vulgar post' about Liverpool mentioning Hillsborough and Heysel, and that the posts repeated debunked claims about the causes of the 1989 disaster; the Guardian, citing The Athletic for the prompt text, reports that Grok replied in a now-deleted post accusing Liverpool's supporters of causing the 'deadly crush'. Both outlets quote Grok's own reply that it generated the posts because users prompted it for vulgar roasts. The harm is the distress that a bereaved relative and a survivors' representative describe on reading those generated posts, so the connection between the chatbot's output and the reported harm is stated in the sources. The relation is made_claim_about because the generated post made a false accusation about the Liverpool supporters present at Hillsborough, the group to which the survivors and the deceased belonged; the people harmed were not the users who prompted Grok.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Grok on X posts 'vulgar roasts' repeating debunked Hillsborough claims and mocking Munich; survivors and bereaved relatives tell the BBC of their distress","summary":"In March 2026, X users prompted Grok, the chatbot built into the X app, to write 'vulgar' posts about Liverpool FC and Manchester United. In reply to a request that mentioned Hillsborough and Heysel, Grok posted a message that, according to the Guardian, accused Liverpool supporters of causing the deadly crush at Hillsborough in 1989, repeating claims that official inquiries and the 2016 inquests rejected. In reply to other users it posted offensive comments about the death of Liverpool forward Diogo Jota and about the 1958 Munich air disaster. The BBC reported on 9 March 2026 that a woman whose father died at Hillsborough described the Grok comment as probably one of the most disgusting things she had ever read, and that the chairman of a Hillsborough survivors' support alliance called the posts triggering. Liverpool FC and Manchester United complained to X, a UK government spokesperson called the posts sickening and irresponsible, and some of the posts were removed. Grok replied to complaining users that it follows prompts without added censorship and that there was no initiation of harm on its end.","incidentDate":"2026-03-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-03-09","aiSystem":"Grok, xAI's chatbot built into the X social media app, generating public reply posts to users' prompts","aiProduct":"Grok","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A bereaved relative told the BBC the Grok post about Hillsborough was probably one of the most disgusting things she had ever read, and the chairman of a Hillsborough survivors' support alliance said the posts were triggering for survivors. No clinical, financial or legal consequence is reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people counted: the bereaved relative who told the BBC she had read the Grok post and described her reaction, and the Liverpool MP who was at Hillsborough in 1989 and told BBC Sport he was deeply horrified by the posts. The survivors' alliance chairman described the posts as triggering for survivors, an unquantified additional group, so the status is partial. The clubs, X users who complained and Manchester United supporters are not counted. Nobody is counted as an AI user: the prompting accounts are the authors of the requests, not harmed people.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mjyggyn1eo","primarySourceLabel":"BBC News, 9 March 2026: Hillsborough survivors 'appalled' by Grok AI posts","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-08T03:24:00.142154+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:44:24.500402+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["made-claim-about","grok","x","false-claims","football","hillsborough","bereaved-families","uk","online-safety-act"]},{"id":"2026-us-uk-hachette-cancels-shy-girl-novel-after-ai-authorship-allegations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The Hachette Book Group said Thursday that it has canceled the publication of horror novel","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"where it was first released in November.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The US release of a horror novel has been cancelled by its publisher over concerns that AI was used to help write it.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Wildfire (in the UK) have decided to no longer continue publishing their edition","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The title has also been removed from online retailers including Amazon","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"But it took until last Thursday for Hachette to pull the book from its website","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"March 19 , the New York Times landed a big story about allegations that a hyped horror novel called Shy Girl","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Hachette Book Group said on Thursday 19 March 2026 that it had cancelled the US publication of the horror novel Shy Girl by Mia Ballard (Orbit imprint) and would not continue the UK edition (Wildfire imprint, first released in November 2025). The Guardian reports the title was also removed from online retailers including Amazon.","causal_attribution":"The cancellation is Hachette’s own announcement, relayed by several outlets. Sources link it to allegations of AI use and to a review by the publisher. Whether AI was in fact used is unresolved (claim c7)."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"readers on platforms such as Goodreads and Reddit had questioned whether sections of the text bore hallmarks of AI-generated prose.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"A widely shared Reddit thread drew hundreds of comments","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"amassed more than 1.2m views","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"one reviewer on the GoodReads website claimed the book appeared to be \"written by ChatGPT\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"In January, a Reddit post from a user who claimed to be a book editor generated significant discussion around","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"published online on January 19 by","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"Readers alleged online that the novel’s text read as AI-generated: reviews on Goodreads, a widely shared Reddit thread, a January Reddit post by a user who said they were a book editor, and a YouTube video posted in January 2026 that had more than 1.2 million views.","causal_attribution":"Online opinion and analysis by readers. It is not evidence about who produced the text. Sources differ on when the earliest accusations appeared (see unknowns)."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"78.4 percent of the document is AI Generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"I soon confirmed this with two other services.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"Originality and GPTZero","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"found evidence that 78 percent of the book is AI-generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"that large parts of Shy Girl appeared to show patterns characteristic of A.I.-generated writing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"to use these reports only for guidance, not as proof of guilt","relation":"context","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"A.I. detection software, while improving, has been shown to be fallible at best","relation":"context","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"AI-detection results were reported as part of the case. A publishing consultant’s first-person account says a copy of the UK edition scored 78.4 percent AI-generated on the Pangram detector, that two other detection services gave confirming results, and that the consultant brought the findings to the New York Times. Futurism reports that the CEO of Pangram ran a test and found evidence that 78 percent of the book is AI-generated. Slate reports that the New York Times verified claims that large parts of the book appeared to show patterns characteristic of AI-generated writing.","causal_attribution":"Detector scores describe statistical patterns in a text. They do not establish who produced the text or whether a generative model was used. Detector reliability is contested in the sources, and the New York Times article that carried the verification was not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"following an investigation into the origins of the book.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"the publisher confirmed it had halted publication after an internal review.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Although the publisher claimed the decision came after a thorough review of the text","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"lengthy investigation in recent weeks","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"remains committed to protecting original creative expression and storytelling","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Hachette said its decision followed a review or investigation of the book and cited its commitment to protecting original creative expression and storytelling. The Wall Street Journal report says the cancellation followed an investigation into the origins of the book, and Futurism relays a Hachette statement to the Journal that both its US and UK imprints conducted a lengthy investigation in recent weeks.","causal_attribution":"Publisher statements about its own process. The sources inspected do not report what the review or investigation found about AI use."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"concerns the day before the announcement.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"shortly after the New York Times approached the publisher with evidence of AI use.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"one Times article said that Hachette pulled the book within a day of first notification by the Times","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"}],"assertion":"The New York Times asked Hachette about the AI concerns the day before the announcement, and the cancellation followed shortly after the Times approached the publisher with evidence of AI use. A consultant’s first-person account says a Times article reported that Hachette pulled the book within a day of first notification by the Times.","causal_attribution":"Timing reported by outlets that rely on the New York Times report, which was not read directly. The sequence shows what preceded the announcement and does not show what Hachette concluded."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"has denied using AI to write the book","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"hired to edit the original self-published version of the novel had used AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"my mental health is at an all time low and my name is ruined for something I didn","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Ballard has denied personally using AI to write the novel.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"my mental health is at an all time low and my name is ruined for something I didn","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"pursuing legal action","relation":"supports","source_id":"s8"},{"locator":"did not personally use AI","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"},{"locator":"please do your research on editors before trusting them with your work","relation":"supports","source_id":"s9"}],"assertion":"Ballard denied personally using AI to write the novel in an email to the New York Times and, per The Independent, in an email to the Wall Street Journal, and told the New York Times that an acquaintance hired to edit the original self-published version had used AI. Ballard wrote: \"This controversy has changed my life in many ways and my mental health is at an all time low and my name is ruined for something I didn’t even personally do\", and said legal action was being pursued.","causal_attribution":"The author’s own statements about the author’s own conduct and its effects. Ballard spoke publicly under that name in emails to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal quoted by several outlets. The acquaintance is not named in the sources and no response from that person is reported."},{"id":"c7","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"found evidence that 78 percent of the book is AI-generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"78.4 percent of the document is AI Generated","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"has denied using AI to write the book","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"A.I. detection software, while improving, has been shown to be fallible at best","relation":"context","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"Whether, by whom and to what extent generative AI produced the text of the published novel is disputed. Detector results and reader analyses point to substantial AI-generated prose. Ballard denies personal use and attributes any AI use to a hired editor. No source inspected reports the editor’s account, an independent verification of authorship, or a finding by the publisher.","causal_attribution":"Causal attribution of the consequence to AI use rests on allegations and detector output that the author disputes. The consequence (cancellation) is a publisher decision responding to those allegations."}],"effects":[{"label":"Publisher cancelled the US edition and discontinued the UK edition of the author’s novel after allegations that it was AI-generated","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Author reports damage to name and severely worsened mental health after the controversy","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.wsj.com/business/media/publisher-pulls-shy-girl-horror-novel-after-ai-allegations-c7944702","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"wsj-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y9d44jj24o","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/mar/20/hachette-horror-novel-shy-girl-suspected-ai-use-mia-ballard","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/21/publisher-pulls-horror-novel-shy-girl-over-ai-concerns","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/novel-pulled-author-accused-ai","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://slate.com/culture/2026/03/shy-girl-mia-ballard-novel-a-i-book-horror-reddit-hachette-canceled.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"slate-shy-girl-reporting"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://thewalrus.ca/new-york-times-ai-generated-shy-girl-mia-ballard/","kind":"first_person_account","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"consultant-first-person-account"},{"id":"s8","url":"https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/100037-while-ai-discourse-rages-publishing-has-more-questions-than-answers.html","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"nyt-shy-girl-report"},{"id":"s9","url":"https://www.aol.com/articles/horror-novel-reportedly-pulled-publication-133355085.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"wsj-shy-girl-report"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Whether generative AI produced any of the text, who used it and to what extent is unresolved. The author denies personal use and attributes any AI use to a hired editor. No source inspected reports that editor’s account, an independent authorship check, or what Hachette found.","The Wall Street Journal page was read as a truncated Wayback extract (three paragraphs, paywall). The New York Times article that first reported the story could not be read (HTTP 403 live and in Wayback captures). Statements attributed to the Times are read through BBC, The Guardian, TechCrunch, Futurism and Publishers Weekly.","Sources differ on when the first online accusations appeared. The Guardian says questions began in early 2026, and Futurism dates a Reddit post to January. Futurism also says accusations have swirled around the book since its self-published run last year, Slate says the rumblings began in January and even earlier, and a first-person account by a publishing consultant says the first accusations appeared online five or six months before Hachette’s July 2025 acquisition announcement and that a Reddit thread was a year old in early February 2026. No inspected source reports a consequence for the author from those earlier accusations. This record dates the event to the publisher’s decision on 19 March 2026, the first reported consequence for the author.","Detector reliability and the tested copy are contested. A Wall Street Journal opinion column on the reliability of the Pangram report was not read, and a summary of it on Wikipedia is not cited.","The author says legal action is being pursued. The target and any filing are not established by the sources inspected. A newsletter’s report of a $1 million lawsuit against Hachette had no filing or second source and is not relied on.","The US publication date is reported differently (April in BBC and Slate, 19 May in the Wall Street Journal). UK sales are reported as about 1,800 (Guardian, citing NielsenIQ) and almost 2,000 (BBC) copies. Neither is used as a harm count.","Whether existing UK copies were withdrawn or destroyed is not consistently reported. The Guardian says the title was removed from online retailers and would no longer be distributed in the UK.","The accusers on Reddit and YouTube, the consultant and the hired editor are not described individually beyond their role in the reporting."],"geography":{"basis":"Hachette cancelled the US release and discontinued the UK edition (BBC). The BBC describes the author as a US author, and The Independent, citing a Google Books author profile, reports a US residence. No court is involved in the sources inspected.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US","GB"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"The publisher’s cancellation, its stated review, the online allegations, the AI-detector results and the author’s denial were read from the Wall Street Journal (truncated), BBC, The Guardian, TechCrunch, Futurism, Slate, Publishers Weekly, The Independent (via AOL) and a consultant’s first-person account. The author is named because the author spoke publicly under that name in emails to two newspapers. Every AI-related claim is attributed and AI involvement is recorded as disputed. The event is dated to the publisher’s decision on 19 March 2026, the first reported consequence for the author. Earlier reader accusations are recorded as context.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"AI-text detectors (Pangram, and per one first-person account Originality and GPTZero) scored the UK edition as largely AI-generated, and readers alleged the prose showed hallmarks of AI. The author denies personally using AI and says an acquaintance hired to edit the self-published version used it. Hachette cited a review of the text and its stance on original creative expression and did not state, in the sources inspected, what the review found. Detector reliability is contested.","status":"disputed"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"US and UK: Hachette cancels the US edition of the novel Shy Girl and discontinues the UK edition after allegations it was AI-generated, with the author denying personal use of AI","summary":"On 19 March 2026 Hachette Book Group said it had cancelled the US publication of the horror novel Shy Girl by Mia Ballard (Orbit imprint) and would not continue the UK edition (Wildfire imprint, first released in November 2025). Reports say the decision followed an investigation by Hachette and came a day after the New York Times asked the publisher about online allegations that the text was largely AI-generated. The allegations came from readers on Goodreads, Reddit and YouTube and from AI-detector results, including a 78.4 percent AI-generated score on the Pangram detector that a publishing consultant says two other services confirmed. Ballard denied personally using AI in emails to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and told the New York Times that an acquaintance hired to edit the original self-published version used AI. Ballard wrote that \"my name is ruined\" and \"my mental health is at an all time low\", and said legal action was being pursued. Hachette’s public statements cite its commitment to original creative expression. The sources inspected do not report what its investigation found. Whether AI generated any of the text, and who used it, is unresolved.","incidentDate":"2026-03-19","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-03-19","aiSystem":"Alleged generative-AI text production in the novel (the author denies personal use and attributes any AI use to a hired editor), and AI-text detectors (Pangram, and per one account Originality and GPTZero) whose scores were used to allege AI authorship","aiProduct":"Pangram AI-text detector","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"disputed","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Hachette cancelled the US publication and discontinued the UK edition of the author’s novel. The author wrote to the New York Times that \"my mental health is at an all time low and my name is ruined for something I didn’t even personally do\" (relayed by BBC and The Guardian). The author denies personally using AI.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the author, reports harm (cancelled publication, damage to name and severely worsened mental health). The hired editor, readers who bought the book and the publisher are not counted as harmed persons.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/mar/20/hachette-horror-novel-shy-girl-suspected-ai-use-mia-ballard","primarySourceLabel":"The Guardian (20 Mar 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T21:16:09.707267+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:57.941496+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2026"]},{"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-christi-hill-grok-false-officer-identification","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'Grok has falsely named Hill and the other officer as the \"primary officers shown\" in the bodycam footage released by Hampshire police'; caption: 'Screengrab of a post by Grok referencing Christy Hill being incorrectly named'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'she was wrongly identified by social media users and artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot Grok'; Hill 'criticised Grok ... for the \"chaos\" it caused by misidentifying her'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Grok falsely named Hill and another officer as the 'primary officers shown' in the bodycam footage of Nowak's arrest; the Guardian carries a screengrab of a Grok post incorrectly naming her.","causal_attribution":"The Guardian documents the Grok post with a screengrab; BBC Verify's interview independently carries her account of the Grok misidentification. What Grok answered to particular queries beyond the screengrabbed post is not documented."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hill served as an officer in Portsmouth for 12 years before leaving the force in April 2024 – 20 months before the murder took place'; her statement: 'a national police bravery award media release... is being repeatedly shared and misattributed to this case'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Hill said she left Hampshire Constabulary in April 2024 - more than a year before Nowak was fatally stabbed in December 2025'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The identification is factually impossible: Hill left Hampshire Constabulary in April 2024, more than a year before the December 2025 murder; the confusion stems from a national police bravery award photo of her and a former colleague being misattributed.","causal_attribution":"Her account, uncontested in the inspected sources; the bravery-award photo mechanism is her explanation, attributed."},{"id":"c3","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'forced to flee to a safe space'; Hampshire: 'A police officer unrelated to this case has been misidentified online and subject to death threats.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'scared for her safety and has been hiding in a safe house'; 'leading to \"threats of violence\"'; video caption: \"received 'endless threats'\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"After the false posts, Hill received 'endless threats' and 'threats of violence' and is hiding in a safe house; Hampshire confirmed an unrelated officer was misidentified online and subjected to death threats.","causal_attribution":"Her account to two independent outlets plus the constabulary's own confirmation."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'The home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, said on Tuesday that a male officer had been misidentified and that he had had to move out of his home.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'BBC Verify has also obtained evidence that current police officer Tristan Parsons, who was also wrongly accused online of being involved, was not in the country at the time of Nowak's murder.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"A second officer was wrongly accused in the same wave: the Home Secretary said a male officer had been misidentified and had to move out of his home; BBC Verify obtained evidence that serving officer Tristan Parsons was not in the country at the time of the murder.","causal_attribution":"The Home Secretary's account covers the displacement; BBC Verify's evidence covers Parsons's non-involvement. Whether Mahmood meant Parsons specifically is not stated; the two accounts are recorded separately."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Musk... posting on his X platform during the trial that he would fund a private prosecution of the officers involved.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Starmer passage: 'Musk, again, has been interfering in our politics in the last few days, trying to whip up division'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Elon Musk posted during the trial that he would fund a private prosecution of the officers involved; Prime Minister Keir Starmer accused Musk of trying to 'whip up division' over the case.","causal_attribution":"Context for the amplification climate; not itself an AI claim."}],"effects":[{"label":"false AI identification of a former officer in a charged murder case; threats drove her into hiding","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/03/former-officer-hampshire-hiding-after-being-falsely-linked-henry-nowak-arrest","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2026-06-03T16:28Z). Includes Hill's statement, the Grok screengrab reference, the Hampshire statement and the Home Secretary's account.","independence_group":"guardian"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg7pl7zj024o","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (datePublished 2026-06-04T15:50Z; BBC Verify, Devlin & Nguyen, with André Rhoden-Paul).","independence_group":"bbc"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["justice","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["What Grok answered in sessions other than the screengrabbed post, and whether xAI corrected or constrained the false identification, is not reported.","The date the false posts began (during the trial) is not precisely stated; Hill first saw them around 03:00 BST on 2 June 2026.","Whether any platform removed the misidentifying content is not reported.","The jury inquest into Nowak's death is expected next year; its findings are pending and concern the police response, not the misidentification."],"geography":{"basis":"Event: the online spread about the Hampshire (Southampton) case and Hill's concealment in the UK. Affected persons: both officers are UK-based (Parsons was abroad at the time of the murder, not at the time of the misidentification). Court country: the Digwa murder trial and the expected inquest are in England; no proceeding by or against the misidentified officers is reported.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a consequential false claim about identified people (made_claim_about): two officers wrongly named by AI platforms in a charged case, documented by two independent chains including the outlet's screengrab evidence and the constabulary's confirmation. Hill spoke publicly; Parsons is named by BBC Verify in a vindicating context. The Nowak case background is limited to what the claims require.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Guardian carries a screengrab of a Grok post incorrectly naming Hill and reports in its own voice that Grok falsely named her and the other officer as the 'primary officers shown'; Hill's own statement names 'AI platforms such as Grok'; BBC Verify's interview confirms the Grok misidentification. xAI was approached for comment by both outlets.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Grok falsely named former officer Christi Hill as an arresting officer in the Henry Nowak case; she is in hiding after threats","summary":"In early June 2026, social media posts and the AI chatbot Grok falsely identified former Hampshire police constable Christi Hill as one of the 'primary officers shown' in bodycam footage of the December 2025 arrest of Henry Nowak, who died after being stabbed. Hill had left the force in April 2024 — more than a year before the murder — and says the misidentification stems from a national police bravery award photo being misattributed. After 'endless threats' and 'threats of violence' she is hiding in a safe house. BBC Verify separately obtained evidence that serving officer Tristan Parsons, also wrongly accused online, was not in the country at the time; the Home Secretary said a misidentified male officer had to move out of his home. Hampshire Constabulary confirmed an unrelated officer was misidentified and received death threats.","incidentDate":"2026-06-02","incidentEndDate":"2026-06-04","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-06-03","aiSystem":"Grok (and other AI platforms, unnamed)","aiProduct":"Grok","aiCompany":"xAI","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","reputational_harm","loss_of_autonomy"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A factually impossible identification by AI platforms including Grok put a former officer into hiding after death threats; a serving officer wrongly accused in the same wave had to move out of his home, per the Home Secretary.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two documented harmed people: Hill (Guardian interview and statement; BBC Verify interview) and the male officer identified by BBC Verify as Tristan Parsons (BBC's evidence he was abroad; the Home Secretary's account that a male officer had to move home). No further misidentified officers are reported in the inspected sources.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/03/former-officer-hampshire-hiding-after-being-falsely-linked-henry-nowak-arrest","primarySourceLabel":"The Guardian (3 Jun 2026) — Hill's statement, the Grok screengrab, Hampshire and Mahmood accounts","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T09:25:27.124866+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:32.056946+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["made-claim-about","false-identification","grok","police","threats","uk"]}]}