{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-11-07T02:13:10.968Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"united-kingdom","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":3,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"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-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it); no tool, prompt or output is identified."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'he relied on an outdated precedent on our system, practitioner blogs and personal notes'; 'we were concerned by the suggestion in the statements made by'; 'that the citation errors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-royal-mail-christmas-ad-ai-voiceover-resembling-late-narrator-daughter-distress","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Royal Mail, Britain' and 'admitted that it used artificial intelligence to deliver its festive message to the nation.' and 'We can reveal that Fameplay licensed its AI technology from ElevenLabs'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'As is increasingly common, the voiceover was AI-generated and we were advised that it was created using prompts and was not designed to replicate any specific individual.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Royal Mail confirmed that the voiceover in its 2025 Christmas advert was AI-generated; Deadline reports that the agency subcontracted it to the AI company Fameplay, which licensed technology from ElevenLabs.","causal_attribution":"Royal Mail statement and Deadline reporting; the AI generation of the voice is not disputed."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It was November 2025, 11 years after her father had passed.' and 'feared that Vaughan' and 'voice was somehow recreated without permission.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'No one in my family had given anyone permission to use his voice. No one had asked. I was really upset by the whole experience.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Vaughan's daughter heard the advert in November 2025, believed the voice was her late father's, and says she was upset that it was used without the family's permission.","causal_attribution":"The daughter's own account given in two interviews; one witness and one origin."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'said there was “considerable phonetic similarity” between the voice in the Royal Mail ads and that of Vaughan.' and 'All three said there were enough similarities to conclude that there was a good chance the AI-generated voice was the “same speaker” as Vaughan.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'There is considerable phonetic similarity between the voice in the Royal Mail adverts and that of Paul Vaughan'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"A forensic speech scientist said there was considerable phonetic similarity between the advert voice and Vaughan's, and Deadline reported that three open-source analysis tools indicated a good chance they were the same speaker.","causal_attribution":"Expert opinion and Deadline's own tool comparison; it supports resemblance and does not establish how the voice was generated."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the company insisted no reference to Vaughan was used in its generative prompts.' and 'the company would only confirm that the Royal Mail narration was not a direct voice clone of Vaughan.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'was not designed to replicate any specific individual.' and 'The production partners also carried out checks and advised that these did not identify any resemblance concerns.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Royal Mail said the voice was not designed to replicate any specific individual and that checks found no resemblance concerns; Fameplay said no reference to Vaughan was used in its prompts, and ElevenLabs said the narration was not a direct clone of Vaughan.","causal_attribution":"Company denials, recorded as contrary evidence."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'has not received an apology from the Royal Mail after complaining.' and 'ElevenLabs has added Vaughan to its No Go Voices'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The daughter complained to Royal Mail and received no apology; ElevenLabs added Vaughan to its No Go Voices list.","causal_attribution":"Deadline reporting of the aftermath."}],"effects":[{"label":"shock and distress on hearing an AI-generated advert voice she recognised as her late father's, used without the family's permission","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://deadline.com/2026/10/paul-vaughan-bbc-paddington-ai-royal-mail-1237149879/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-11; no translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text. HTTP 200, full article body retained.","independence_group":"deadline-royal-mail-vaughan"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/paul-vaughan-ai-voice-royal-mail-christmas-advert-2025-b3064151.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-11; no translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text. Read on the MSN content-API syndicated copy (provider The Independent, same text); it relays Deadline and adds its own Royal Mail statement.","independence_group":"deadline-royal-mail-vaughan"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2255616/experts-warn-ai-dangers-royal-2255616","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-11; no translation was needed and no human reviewer inspected the text. Read on the MSN content-API syndicated copy (provider Daily Express, same text).","independence_group":"express-royal-mail-vaughan"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","relationships"],"unknowns":["How the voice was generated and whether the underlying model was trained on Vaughan's recordings; ElevenLabs declined to comment on training.","The dates the advert aired beyond November 2025, and whether Royal Mail has withdrawn or altered it."],"geography":{"basis":"Deadline reports that the daughter heard the Royal Mail advert on ITV at home in Buckinghamshire, England, in November 2025, and the campaign was Royal Mail's UK Christmas campaign. No court proceeding is reported.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a case of an AI-generated advert voice reaching a bereaved relative: Royal Mail confirms the voiceover was AI-generated, the late narrator's daughter recognised it as her father and describes her distress, and a forensic speech scientist and Deadline's tool comparison report close similarity. Two reporting chains were read (Deadline, relayed by The Independent, and the Daily Express). The companies deny that the voice was designed to copy him or is a direct clone, so causation is recorded as disputed.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Royal Mail told The Independent and the Daily Express that \"the voiceover was AI-generated\", created using prompts, and Deadline reports that Royal Mail admitted using artificial intelligence for it. Deadline reports that the voiceover was subcontracted to Fameplay, which licensed ElevenLabs technology. The generated narration is what the daughter heard and recognised as her father: she said \"that was Dad\", and a forensic speech scientist found \"considerable phonetic similarity\" between the advert voice and Vaughan's. The AI-generated voice is undisputed; whether it imitates Vaughan is disputed by Royal Mail, Fameplay and ElevenLabs.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"UK: Royal Mail confirms AI-generated voiceover in 2025 Christmas ad that late narrator Paul Vaughan's daughter says was his voice; firms deny a clone","summary":"Royal Mail's 2025 Christmas television campaign ended with a narrator speaking the slogan \"Royal Mail, it's so much more than just a card\". In November 2025 the daughter of the BBC narrator Paul Vaughan, who died in 2014 and was known for Horizon and the Paddington audiobooks, heard the advert on television and believed the voice was her father's; Deadline reports that she feared his voice had been recreated without permission, and she told the Daily Express that no one in the family had given permission and that she was really upset. Responding to questions from Deadline, Royal Mail admitted using AI for the voiceover; its spokesperson told The Independent and the Daily Express that the voiceover was AI-generated, created using prompts and not designed to replicate any specific individual, and that its production partners' checks found no resemblance concerns. Deadline reported that the agency subcontracted the voiceover to the Czech AI firm Fameplay, which licensed technology from ElevenLabs; Fameplay said no reference to Vaughan was used in its prompts and ElevenLabs said the narration was not a direct clone of Vaughan, while declining to say whether its model was trained on his recordings. A University of York forensic speech scientist was quoted by both outlets as finding considerable phonetic similarity between the advert voice and Vaughan's, and Deadline reported that three open-source analysis tools indicated a good chance the voices were the same speaker. Deadline reports that she complained to Royal Mail and has received no apology; ElevenLabs has added Vaughan to its list of voices that cannot be cloned on its platform.","incidentDate":"2025-11-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-09","aiSystem":"AI-generated voiceover for the slogan of Royal Mail's 2025 Christmas television campaign, subcontracted by the ad agency to Fameplay, a Czech AI voice company that Deadline reports licensed its technology from ElevenLabs.","aiProduct":"Fameplay AI voiceover (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The late narrator's daughter says that hearing what she recognised as her dead father's voice in the AI-generated advert, eleven years after his death and without the family's permission, left her shocked and upset; the Daily Express quotes her as saying she was really upset by the whole experience. Royal Mail and the AI companies deny that the voice was designed to replicate him. No other harm is reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: Vaughan's daughter, who describes her own distress on hearing the advert. Her husband heard the advert but no harm to him is reported, and television viewers are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://deadline.com/2026/10/paul-vaughan-bbc-paddington-ai-royal-mail-1237149879/","primarySourceLabel":"Deadline, 9 October 2026: daughter of late BBC and Paddington narrator accuses Royal Mail of recreating her father's voice with AI","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-11T03:25:26.999857+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T03:25:26.999857+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-voice","voice-cloning","advertising","royal-mail","elevenlabs","deceased-person","united-kingdom","depicted","institutional-use"]},{"id":"2025-uk-upper-tribunal-immigration-adviser-google-ai-mode-fake-case-in-appeal-grounds-regulator-self-report","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'he was the person responsible for the case and drafting of the grounds of 17th March 2025 in this matter.'; 'provide an explanation for the fact that the case Horleston v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 654 cited in the grounds of appeal to the Upper Tribunal is not available on BAILII'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Grounds of appeal dated 17 March 2025, drafted by the adviser, cited a case (Horleston v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 654) that the Upper Tribunal could not find, under the citation of an unrelated case; the tribunal issued a show cause notice.","causal_attribution":"Established by the judgment's own record of the show cause notice and the adviser's response."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'We confirm unequivocally that no AI large language model (such as ChatGPT) was used in drafting the grounds of appeal.'; 'In absence of an explanation and with how AI operates, I cannot dismiss the fact that the case was an AI creation as there is no other explanation.'; 'his best guess was that he had inadvertently used the “AI Mode” of a Google search by clicking on this on the bar under the search topic.'; 'concluded himself that it was probable that this had happened because of the inadvertent use of an AI large language model'; 'As far as the Panel could establish there had never been a reported case called Horleston but Google AI nevertheless can, depending on the question posed, produce information such as panels of Court of Appeal judges who sat on this non-existent case'; 'By asking Google AI the same question in slightly different ways, we were able to elicit various different compositions of the bench which decided that fictitious case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The adviser first denied using an AI large language model, later said he could not dismiss that the case was an AI creation, and at the hearing gave as his best guess that he had inadvertently used Google's 'AI Mode'; the tribunal found he had concluded it was probable the fake case came from inadvertent AI use, and the panel elicited varying benches for the fictitious case from Google AI.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal documents what the adviser said and its own test of Google AI; the source of the case in the drafting rests on his conclusion and best guess, so the claim is reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'reported himself to the IAA and to the SRA for having unknowingly inserted a non-existent case in grounds of appeal'; 'has already done this and there is no need for us to do so. If he had not done this we wish to make it clear that we would have made a referral'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The adviser reported himself to the IAA and the SRA for having unknowingly inserted a non-existent case, and the tribunal made no referral for that reason, stating it would otherwise have referred him.","causal_attribution":"Established by the judgment's findings and its stated decision on referral."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'he had put client emails he had drafted explaining Home Office decisions into ChatGPT to try to improve them and he had uploaded Home Office decision letters to this platform to summarise them for clients.'; 'He informed us that he now realises that this is a data breach and will inform the clients that he has done this, as well as the IAA and the SRA.'; 'to put client letters and decision letters from the Home Office into an open source AI tool, such as ChatGPT, is to place this information on the internet in the public domain, and thus to breach client confidentiality and waive legal privilege'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The adviser told the tribunal he had put client emails explaining Home Office decisions into ChatGPT and uploaded Home Office decision letters to it to summarise them, called this a data breach he would disclose to the clients, the IAA and the SRA; the tribunal said such uploads breach client confidentiality and waive legal privilege.","causal_attribution":"The uploads rest on the adviser's own account as recorded by the tribunal; the tribunal's statement on confidentiality is its own observation. The clients' number and whether they were told are not stated."}],"effects":[{"label":"non-existent case, probably from Google AI Mode by his own account, placed in appeal grounds he drafted","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"self-reported to the IAA and the SRA; the tribunal would otherwise have referred him","claim_id":"c3","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 on Find Case Law (HTTP 200); no translation.","independence_group":"ukut-2026-81-judgment"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Whether the false case actually came from Google AI Mode; the judgment records the adviser's best guess and conclusion, with no search history or output","What effect, if any, the false case had on the appellant's permission application","How many clients' emails or decision letters were put into ChatGPT and whether they were informed","The outcome of the IAA and SRA self-reports"],"geography":{"basis":"Event: the grounds were filed with the First-tier and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), heard at Field House, and the adviser practises under the UK regulators IAA and SRA (judgment). Court: the Upper Tribunal. The adviser's and clients' countries of residence are not stated.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published from the full Upper Tribunal judgment: it documents the false case in grounds the adviser drafted and his self-reports to two regulators, and records his conclusion that the case probably came from inadvertent AI use and his best guess that the tool was Google AI Mode, which the panel's own Google AI test illustrates. The AI source is attributed to his account; his separate account of uploading client documents to ChatGPT is context. The adviser is described by role; the anonymised appellant is not counted.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The judgment records the adviser's best guess that the non-existent case came from his inadvertent use of Google's 'AI Mode', and finds that he concluded it was probable the case was included because of inadvertent use of an AI large language model; the panel reproduced Google AI generating different benches for the same fictitious case. The output reached him through his own search (communicated_with) and went into the grounds that led to the show cause notice and his self-reports. This rests on his account as recorded by the tribunal; he first denied AI use. His separate account of putting client emails and Home Office decision letters into ChatGPT is described as context and is not part of this case's harm.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"UK Upper Tribunal: immigration adviser gives Google AI Mode as his best guess for a non-existent case in grounds he drafted; he self-reported to regulators","summary":"In the first of two matters decided together in [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), promulgated on 17 November 2025, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) examined grounds of appeal dated 17 March 2025 that cited a non-existent Court of Appeal case under the citation of an unrelated equal-pay case. The adviser who drafted them first denied using AI, then told the tribunal his best guess was that he had inadvertently used Google's 'AI Mode', and the tribunal recorded that he had concluded it was probable the case came from inadvertent AI use; the panel itself got Google AI to produce varying benches for the fictitious case. He reported himself to the Immigration Advice Authority and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and the tribunal said it would otherwise have referred him. He also told the tribunal that he had put client emails and uploaded Home Office decision letters into ChatGPT to summarise them, which he called a data breach he would disclose to the clients; the tribunal said such uploads breach client confidentiality and waive privilege.","incidentDate":"2025-03-17","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-11-17","aiSystem":"Google search 'AI Mode', identified by the adviser as his best guess for the source of the false case","aiProduct":"Google AI Mode (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Upper Tribunal's judgment, an immigration adviser placed a non-existent case in appeal grounds, which the tribunal found he had concluded probably came from inadvertent AI use (his best guess: Google AI Mode); he self-reported to the IAA and the SRA, and the tribunal said it would otherwise have referred him.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One counted person: the adviser, who used the AI and faced the regulatory consequence. His clients whose emails and decision letters he said he put into ChatGPT belong to a separate, undated matter described as context and are not counted. The appellant in the matter is not counted because no consequence of the false case for the appeal is stated.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","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":"2026-10-11T03:13:21.379148+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:27:35.689369+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-hallucination","fabricated-citations","legal","immigration","tribunal","google-ai-mode","united-kingdom","communicated-with"]},{"id":"2025-gb-news-broadcaster-narinder-kaur-nudification-app-deepfake-images-x","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'One weekday morning last November, Narinder Kaur discovered she had been the victim of a shocking, humiliating crime.'; 'someone had screenshot photographs she’d shared on her Instagram account and removed her clothing using a so-called ‘nudification’ app'; 'Since that first image appeared on her X page last November, she has been tagged in messages containing at least 20 more deep-faked pictures and videos of her.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In November 2025 the broadcaster Narinder Kaur found on X sexually explicit images of herself made from photographs she had shared on Instagram, using a nudification app; since then she has been tagged in messages containing at least 20 more deepfaked pictures and videos of her.","causal_attribution":"Her own account in a Daily Mail feature; the images are not reproduced and no other inspected source describes them."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I felt such despair in the early weeks that I fell into a depression, not wanting to get out of bed.'; 'My family persuaded me to see my GP, who suggested antidepressants.'; 'I didn’t want to go down that route over this.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"She says she fell into a depression in the early weeks and her family persuaded her to see her GP, who suggested antidepressants, which she declined.","causal_attribution":"Her own account."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Almost as devastating as the images of me were the comments underneath, from people who believed they were real.'; 'suggesting I went to Epstein’s parties is also an attack on my integrity,'; 'thinking my teenage children might come across them online.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"She says commenters treated the images as real, that images linking her to Jeffrey Epstein attack her integrity, and that she fears her teenage children may see them.","causal_attribution":"Her own account."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Narinder has, meanwhile, reported each image and had numerous visits from the police but still none of the perpetrators has been identified.'; 'perpetrators hide behind anonymous online profiles and delete their accounts as soon as they are reported.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"She has reported each image and had numerous police visits, but no perpetrator has been identified because the accounts are anonymous and deleted when reported.","causal_attribution":"Her account as reported by the Daily Mail; no police statement is quoted."}],"effects":[{"label":"nude images made from her Instagram photographs with a nudification app were posted on X, followed by at least 20 more deepfaked pictures and videos tagged to her","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"says she fell into a depression and her GP suggested antidepressants","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"commenters believed the images were real, and some images linked her to Jeffrey Epstein, which she calls an attack on her integrity","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-16170493/deepfake-porn-women-TV-presenter-Labour-MP-lecturer.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-10-01 from the live Daily Mail page (30 September 2026, updated 12:08 BST), a feature by Helen Carroll that quotes her at length; the same text is on dailymail.com. First-person account of the broadcaster.","independence_group":"daily-mail-kaur-feature"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","work","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Which app or AI tool was used and who made or posted the images.","Which police force is involved and the status of its inquiry.","Whether X removed the posts."],"geography":{"basis":"The Daily Mail says she lives in north London. The images were posted on X by anonymous accounts whose location is unknown, so the event country is left unknown.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): a television broadcaster, a public figure speaking on record, gives the Daily Mail a first-person account of sexually explicit images made from her Instagram photographs with a nudification app and posted on X since November 2025, with depression, police reports and no identified perpetrator. Single-source first-person account; the imagery is not described in detail. Two other women in the same feature are separate cases (one already held).","reviewed_on":"2026-10-01"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Daily Mail reports that someone took photographs she had shared on Instagram and removed her clothing using a so-called nudification app, and describes deepfake pornography as using AI to alter images in sexually explicit ways. No tool is named and the perpetrators are unidentified.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"London: the broadcaster Narinder Kaur says that since sexually explicit images made from her Instagram photographs with a nudification app appeared on X in November 2025 she has been tagged in at least 20 more deepfaked pictures and videos, and that she fell into a depression; no perpetrator has been identified (Daily Mail, 30 September 2026)","summary":"Narinder Kaur, a 54-year-old broadcaster and regular TV commentator, told the Daily Mail (30 September 2026) that one morning in November 2025 she opened X and found sexually explicit images of herself, made by taking photographs she had shared on Instagram and removing her clothing with a so-called nudification app. Since then she has been tagged in at least 20 more deepfaked pictures and videos, some linking her to Jeffrey Epstein. She says she fell into a depression in the early weeks and her GP suggested antidepressants, that commenters treated the images as real, and that she fears her teenage children will see them. She has reported each image and had numerous police visits, but no perpetrator has been identified because the accounts are anonymous and deleted when reported. She has joined the Stop AI Abuse campaign.","incidentDate":"2025-11-01","incidentKind":"ongoing_experience","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-09-30","aiSystem":"A so-called nudification app used to remove her clothing from photographs taken from her Instagram account, and other deepfaked pictures and videos posted on X (Daily Mail); no tool is named","aiProduct":"Unidentified image and video tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse","psychological_distress","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"She says sexually explicit deepfake images made from her Instagram photographs, and at least 20 more deepfaked pictures and videos, were posted and tagged to her on X, leaving her degraded and depressed, and that commenters believed they were real (her account to the Daily Mail).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the broadcaster depicted in the images (Daily Mail). Her family is mentioned but not counted. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-16170493/deepfake-porn-women-TV-presenter-Labour-MP-lecturer.html","primarySourceLabel":"Daily Mail, 30 September 2026: I never thought that as a married mother of two in my 50s I would become a victim of deepfake porn","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-01T03:18:08.323735+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-01T03:18:08.323735+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["deepfake","nudify","non-consensual-intimate-imagery","x-twitter","broadcaster","united-kingdom","depicted-or-impersonated"]}]}