{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T08:12:21.914Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"uk","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"unknown","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":2,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"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-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"]}]}