{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T07:22:49.928Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"us","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":20,"coverage":{"cases":20,"countries":8,"languages":8,"unknownLocation":3,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":2,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":20,"minors":1,"coreRelations":8,"contextualRelations":20,"mixedRelations":8,"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":"2026-udmurtia-entrepreneur-fined-by-russian-intellectual-property-court-over-ai-invented-case-law","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Суд установил, что часть из приведенных предпринимателем в тексте кассационной жалобы 12 ссылок на судебную практику, в том числе одна якобы на правовую позицию, изложенную в определении Верховного суда РФ, относилась к несуществующим судебным актам либо содержала приписанные им выводы; наложил на предпринимателя судебный штраф в размере 5 тысяч рублей","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Суд по интеллектуальным правам оштрафовал на пять тысяч рублей индивидуального предпринимателя из Удмуртии, который сослался в своей жалобе на несуществующую практику.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Court for Intellectual Property Rights found that part of the 12 case-law references in the entrepreneur's cassation appeal, including one said to be a position of the Supreme Court of Russia, referred to non-existent court acts or attributed conclusions to them, and imposed a court fine of 5,000 roubles.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings as relayed by its press service and by Rossiyskaya Gazeta; the ruling itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Бизнесмен пояснил, что при подготовке кассационной жалобы использовал сервис, работающий на основе искусственного интеллекта.; Именно нейросеть подобрала судебную практику","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"несуществующую судебную практику, сгенерированную сервисами искусственного интеллекта","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The entrepreneur explained that he had prepared the cassation appeal with an AI-based service, which selected the case law he cited.","causal_attribution":"His own explanation to the court, reported by Rossiyskaya Gazeta; the press service describes the case law as generated by AI services."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Защита предпринимателя заявила, что у него нет юридического образования, поэтому он не мог самостоятельно оценить корректность ссылок.; Оправдаться не получилось.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"представитель заявителя жалобы уверял, что допущенные им неточности и технические ошибки вследствие использования сервисов искусственного интеллекта не свидетельствуют о неуважении к суду; СИП критически оценил аргументы заявителя","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"His side argued that he had no legal education and could not check the references, and that the inaccuracies were technical errors caused by using AI services rather than contempt of court; the court rejected these arguments.","causal_attribution":"The appellant's defence and the court's rejection, as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"fined 5,000 roubles for contempt of court over AI-invented case law in his appeal","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://1prime.ru/20260827/biznesmen-872750520.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ru","translation_note":"Read in Russian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200) and translated by that agent; no human translator or reviewer read it. PRIME (RIA Novosti group) report of 27 Aug 2026 quoting the court's press service (bodies/ru-prime-sip.html/.txt).","independence_group":"sip-press-service-ria"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://rg.ru/2026/09/01/nejroset-podvela.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ru","translation_note":"Read in Russian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200) and translated by that agent; no human translator or reviewer read it. Rossiyskaya Gazeta report of 1 Sep 2026 that quotes the court's ruling and describes the parties' explanations (bodies/ru-rg-neiroset.html/.txt).","independence_group":"rg-sip-ruling"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["The date of the ruling; it was reported on 27 August 2026.","Which AI service was used and what it produced beyond the citations described.","Whether the fine was appealed."],"geography":{"basis":"The recorded events are court events in Russia: the appeal was filed with, and the fine imposed by, Russia's Court for Intellectual Property Rights (PRIME; Rossiyskaya Gazeta). Both reports describe the entrepreneur as being from Udmurtia, a Russian region.","court_countries":["RU"],"event_countries":["RU"],"affected_person_countries":["RU"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with, with informed_decision_about): by his own account an AI-based service selected case law for an entrepreneur's cassation appeal, part of it did not exist, and the court fined him 5,000 roubles, as reported from the court's press service and the ruling.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"By the entrepreneur's own explanation to the court, an AI-based service selected the case law in his cassation appeal, and PRIME (RIA Novosti), reporting the court's press service, describes that case law as generated by AI services; the court's own findings as quoted do not mention AI. The court found that part of the references pointed to court acts that do not exist or misstated them, and fined him for it. The AI service is not named, and its output was read only as described in the reports.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Russian intellectual property court fined an Udmurtia entrepreneur 5,000 roubles over non-existent case law he said an AI service selected, reports say","summary":"Russia's Court for Intellectual Property Rights fined an individual entrepreneur from Udmurtia 5,000 roubles for contempt of court after finding that part of the 12 references to case law in his cassation appeal, including one said to be a Supreme Court position, pointed to court acts that do not exist or attributed conclusions to them, the court's press service told RIA Novosti on 27 August 2026. Rossiyskaya Gazeta reports that the entrepreneur explained he had prepared the appeal with an AI-based service that selected the case law, and that his side argued he had no legal education and could not check the references; the court rejected the argument that the errors were technical. The date of the ruling and the AI service are not reported.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-08-27","aiSystem":"An AI-based service, not named in the reports, that the entrepreneur said selected the case law for his cassation appeal","aiProduct":"Unidentified legal research tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"An entrepreneur was fined 5,000 roubles for contempt of court after his cassation appeal cited non-existent case law that, by his account, an AI-based service had selected.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the entrepreneur who used the AI service and was fined (court press service; Rossiyskaya Gazeta).","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"RU","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://1prime.ru/20260827/biznesmen-872750520.html","primarySourceLabel":"PRIME (RIA Novosti), 27 Aug 2026: court fines businessman over fake case law generated by AI","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-23T03:20:50.098873+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:20:50.098873+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated-citations","court-filing","court-fine","russia","own-use","russian-language"]},{"id":"2025-student-complaints-ombudsman-upholds-autistic-students-complaint-over-ai-misconduct-zero-mark-cleared-on-reconsideration","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A student with autism was invited to respond to allegations that they had included large sections of AI-generated content in an essay submission.'; 'The student said that they had not used AI to write their essay. They provided details of their essay preparations, planning and notes.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the OIA case summary, a student with autism was invited to respond to allegations of including large sections of AI-generated content in an essay, denied using AI, and provided details of their preparation, planning and notes.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's summary of the record; one source; reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A disciplinary panel considered the student’s written evidence and also compared the essay to some other examples of the student’s work. It decided that academic misconduct had occurred. As a penalty, the student received a mark of zero with any reassessment capped at a pass.'; 'The provider rejected the student’s appeal.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the OIA, a disciplinary panel considered the student's written evidence and compared the essay with other examples of the student's work, found academic misconduct, and gave a mark of zero with any reassessment capped at a pass; the provider rejected the student's appeal.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's summary of the provider's decisions; reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'They raised concerns about the reliability of AI detection software used by the provider. The student explained that the detection software had previously flagged another essay they had written for suspected use of AI but in that case it had been agreed that the student had not used AI.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In the appeal the student raised concerns about the reliability of the provider's AI detection software, saying it had previously flagged another essay of theirs for suspected AI use when it was agreed they had not used AI.","causal_attribution":"The student's account as summarised by the OIA; the earlier flag is not independently described; reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'We upheld the student’s complaint (we decided it was Justified).'; 'We were satisfied that the panel had engaged with the substance of the student’s essay, and not only relied on the AI detection software report.'; 'We concluded that the panel had not given sufficient reasons for the decision it had reached'; 'We recommended that the provider reconsider the case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The OIA found the complaint Justified: it was satisfied the panel had not relied only on the AI detection software report, but found it had not properly considered the student's points and evidence, had not shared some evidence it relied on, and had not given sufficient reasons; it recommended reconsideration and a review of the provider's regulations.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's own decision; documented."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The student let us know that when the provider reconsidered the case, it decided that there had not been any academic misconduct.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the student, when the provider reconsidered the case it decided there had been no academic misconduct.","causal_attribution":"The student's report to the OIA, relayed by the OIA; the provider's reconsideration decision is not inspected; reported."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'We are the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The OIA is the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales.","causal_attribution":"The body's own description; documented."}],"effects":[{"label":"mark of zero with reassessment capped at a pass for alleged AI use, before the provider found no misconduct (OIA summary)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the ombudsman upheld the complaint and, on reconsideration, the provider found no misconduct (student's report to the OIA)","claim_id":"c5","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.oiahe.org.uk/resources-and-publications/case-summaries/ai-and-academic-misconduct-cs072501/","kind":"regulator_decision_summary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200). OIA case summary in its July 2025 series on AI and academic misconduct (page metadata dc.date 2025-07-08). The OIA anonymises the student and the provider; the outcome of the reconsideration is what the student told the OIA.","independence_group":"oia-case-summary-cs072501"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.oiahe.org.uk/about-us/","kind":"official_page","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200). The OIA describes itself as the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales; used only to identify the body, not to locate the provider.","independence_group":"oia-about-page"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education","accessibility"],"unknowns":["When the essay was submitted and the misconduct decision made.","Which provider and which detection software were involved, and what the report said.","How much weight the panel gave the detection report relative to the comparison with other work.","Whether the student's record and mark were restored after the reconsideration."],"geography":{"basis":"The OIA reviews complaints about higher-education providers in England and Wales, but the summary does not name the provider or say where it is, and the OIA is not a court; no country is recorded from the scheme's remit alone. The jurisdiction field gives GB as the scheme's jurisdiction.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the higher-education ombudsman reports that an AI detection report was before a panel that gave an autistic student a zero for alleged AI use, and that it upheld the student's complaint about that decision. On the student's report to the OIA, the provider then found no misconduct. The student and the provider are anonymous, the event date is not given, and the detection report's role is stated as the OIA describes it.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The OIA summary says the provider used AI detection software, that the student challenged its reliability, and that the disciplinary panel had the software's report, which the OIA found the panel did not rely on alone, together with comparisons with the student's other work when it found misconduct and gave a mark of zero. The detection report thus informed a human decision about the student. The summary does not give the report's score or name the software, and the panel's weighting of the report against the other evidence is not stated.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Ombudsman upholds autistic student's complaint over AI-misconduct zero mark from panel with detection-software report; student says provider later cleared them","summary":"A case summary published in July 2025 by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA), the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales, describes a student with autism who was accused of including large sections of AI-generated content in an essay. The student denied using AI and submitted planning and notes. A disciplinary panel, which had the provider's AI detection software report and compared the essay with other work by the student, found academic misconduct and gave a mark of zero with any reassessment capped at a pass; the provider rejected the appeal, in which the student said the same software had earlier flagged another of their essays in a case where it had been agreed they had not used AI. The OIA found the complaint Justified: the panel had not properly considered the student's evidence, had not shared some evidence it relied on, and had not given sufficient reasons. It recommended reconsideration and changes to the provider's rules, and the student told the OIA that on reconsideration the provider decided there had been no misconduct. The provider and the software are not named.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-07-08","aiSystem":"AI detection software used by the provider, whose report the disciplinary panel had alongside comparisons with the student's other work; not named in the OIA summary","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI-text detector","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the OIA case summary, an autistic student who denied using AI received a mark of zero with reassessment capped at a pass from a panel that had an AI detection report; the ombudsman upheld the complaint and, the student told the OIA, the provider later found no misconduct.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One student, given a mark of zero with reassessment capped at a pass and later cleared, according to the OIA case summary. The student did not use the detection software, so is counted among other people harmed.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.oiahe.org.uk/resources-and-publications/case-summaries/ai-and-academic-misconduct-cs072501/","primarySourceLabel":"OIA case summary CS072501, AI and academic misconduct, July 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-23T03:15:40.620144+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:15:40.620144+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["academic-integrity","higher-education","ai-detection","zero-mark","ombudsman","autism","complaint-upheld"]},{"id":"2019-us-rite-aid-facial-recognition-false-matches-led-staff-to-search-and-eject-shoppers-ftc-says","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The technology generated alerts sent to Rite Aid’s employees, including by email or mobile phone application notifications (“match alerts”), indicating that individuals who had entered Rite Aid stores were matches for entries in Rite Aid’s watchlist database.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Rite Aid used facial recognition in its stores to send employees match alerts saying that people entering were matches for its watchlist database, and employees acted on the alerts.","causal_attribution":"FTC allegation; Rite Aid neither admits nor denies."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In numerous instances, the match alerts that led to these actions were false positives' and 'Rite Aid employees recorded thousands of false positive match alerts between December 2019 and July 2020.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The FTC alleges that in numerous instances the alerts that led employees to watch, eject, accuse, search or report customers to police were false positives, and that employees recorded thousands of false-positive alerts between December 2019 and July 2020.","causal_attribution":"FTC allegation from Rite Aid records; not adjudicated."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Rite Aid employees stopped and searched an 11-year-old girl on the basis of a false- positive facial recognition match. The girl’s mother told Rite Aid that she had missed work because her daughter was so distraught by the incident.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Employees stopped and searched an 11-year-old girl on a false-positive match; her mother told Rite Aid she missed work because her daughter was so distraught.","causal_attribution":"FTC allegation based on a complaint to Rite Aid."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'an alert indicating that a consumer—' and 'specifically a Black woman—was a match for an enrollment image that Rite Aid employees' and 'described as depicting “a white lady with blonde hair.” In response to the alert, Rite Aid' and 'employees called the police and asked the woman to leave the store before realizing the alert was'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The system matched a Black woman to an enrollment image employees described as a white woman with blonde hair; employees called the police and asked her to leave before realising the alert was false.","causal_attribution":"FTC allegation drawn from Rite Aid's internal investigation."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Consumers complained to Rite Aid that they had experienced humiliation and feelings of stigmatization as a result of being confronted' and '[E]very black man is not [a] thief nor should they be made to feel like one' and 'I feel different from this experience when I walk into a store now it’s weird.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Customers complained of humiliation and stigmatisation from false-positive stops; one wrote of feeling different entering stores afterwards and of being made to feel like a thief.","causal_attribution":"Consumer complaints as quoted by the FTC."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'are prohibited for five (5) years from the effective date of this Order from deploying or using, or assisting in the deployment or use of, any Facial Recognition or Analysis System' and 'Defendants neither admit nor deny any of the allegations in the Complaint'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Rite Aid agreed to a proposed stipulated order prohibiting it for five years from using facial recognition or analysis systems in retail stores, while neither admitting nor denying the complaint's allegations.","causal_attribution":"Terms of the filed proposed order; its entry by the court was not inspected."}],"effects":[{"label":"girl stopped and searched on a false facial-recognition match","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"police called and customer asked to leave on a false match","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"humiliation and stigmatisation from false-positive stops","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2023190_riteaid_complaint_filed.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-22 from the Internet Archive capture (ftc.gov direct returned 404); no translation needed. FTC complaint, E.D. Pa. 2:23-cv-05023, Document 1, filed 19 Dec 2023; the text of page 1 was not extractable.","independence_group":"ftc-v-rite-aid-2023-filings"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2023190_riteaid_stipulated_order_filed.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-22 from the Internet Archive capture (ftc.gov direct returned 404); no translation needed. Proposed stipulated order and attached decision and order, Document 2-2, filed 19 Dec 2023.","independence_group":"ftc-v-rite-aid-2023-filings"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["everyday_life","privacy"],"unknowns":["When and where the girl was searched and the police were called on the woman.","Which vendors supplied the technology (the complaint does not name them in the text read).","Whether and when the court entered the proposed order.","How many customers were stopped, searched or ejected on false matches."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint places Rite Aid's facial recognition use in its US stores (New York City, Los Angeles and other US cities); it was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The described customers' countries are not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a contextual case (made_claim_about, informed_decision_about): the FTC alleges Rite Aid's facial recognition wrongly matched customers to a watchlist and staff acted on the false alerts by searching an 11-year-old girl and calling police on a woman; Rite Aid agreed to a five-year ban without admitting the allegations.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-22"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The FTC complaint says Rite Aid's facial recognition system compared customers' faces with a watchlist and sent employees match alerts, that the alerts were in numerous instances false positives (the system wrongly identified a person as someone in the database), and that employees acted on those false alerts by searching an 11-year-old girl, calling police on a Black woman and asking customers to leave. The system's own wrong matches are the alleged error; Rite Aid neither admits nor denies.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"US: FTC says Rite Aid's facial recognition falsely matched shoppers to a watchlist, leading staff to search an 11-year-old girl and call police on a woman","summary":"In a complaint filed in federal court in Pennsylvania on 19 December 2023, the US Federal Trade Commission alleged that the pharmacy chain Rite Aid used facial recognition in its stores to match customers against a database of people it suspected of shoplifting or other wrongdoing, and that staff acted on the match alerts by following, searching, ejecting and publicly accusing customers and by calling the police. The FTC says many alerts were false positives: employees recorded thousands of false-positive alerts between December 2019 and July 2020, staff stopped and searched an 11-year-old girl on a false match, and employees called the police on a Black woman matched to an image of a white woman with blonde hair. Rite Aid agreed to a proposed order barring it from using facial recognition in retail stores for five years, without admitting or denying the allegations.","incidentDate":"2019-12-01","incidentEndDate":"2020-07-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2023-12-19","aiSystem":"Facial recognition technology from two vendors (not named in the complaint) that Rite Aid deployed in its stores to compare customers' faces with a watchlist database and send match alerts to employees","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress","reputational_harm","other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The FTC alleges that false facial-recognition matches led Rite Aid staff to search, eject, publicly accuse and call police on customers, including an 11-year-old girl who was searched and a Black woman on whom police were called; customers described humiliation and stigmatisation.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"inward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Three people described individually in the complaint: the 11-year-old girl searched on a false match, the Black woman on whom police were called, and the customer who wrote about being treated as a thief. The complaint's thousands of recorded false-positive alerts are alerts, not counted people, so others remain unquantified.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2023190_riteaid_complaint_filed.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"FTC v. Rite Aid Corp., E.D. Pa. 2:23-cv-05023, complaint filed 19 Dec 2023","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-22T03:13:38.451275+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-22T03:13:38.451275+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial_recognition","retail","alleged_false_match","ftc"]},{"id":"2023-victoria-child-protection-worker-entered-family-information-into-chatgpt-for-court-report-regulator-finds","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Report: 'The Deputy Commissioner therefore found that DFFH contravened both IPP 3.1 and IPP 4.1 and determined that the contraventions were “serious”'; 'Issue a direction to Child Protection staff setting out that they are not to use any web-based or external Application Programming Interface (API)-based GenAI text tools (such as ChatGPT) as part of their official duties'; 'This action must be implemented by 5 November 2024 and maintained until 5 November 2026'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The regulator issued orders to the department, including blocking IP and domains for a range of generative AI websites, including ChatGPT, Meta AI, Gemini and Copilot.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"OVIC's investigation report, published in September 2024, found that DFFH contravened Information Privacy Principles 3.1 and 4.1 over a child protection worker's use of ChatGPT, that the contraventions were serious, and issued a compliance notice requiring DFFH to direct child protection staff not to use web-based generative AI text tools and to block them until 5 November 2026.","causal_attribution":"The regulator's own report and compliance notice establish its findings and orders."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Compliance notice: 'In or around September 2023, a Child Protection worker (CPW1) of the Organisation used'; 'ChatGPT, a web-based generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tool, when drafting a Protection'. Report: 'The report had been submitted to the Children’s Court for a case concerning a young child whose parents had been charged in relation to sexual offences'; 'CPW1 admitted that they had used ChatGPT in drafting the report, but denied inputting personal information as part of this'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"OVIC found that in or around September 2023 a DFFH child protection worker used ChatGPT when drafting a Protection Application Report that was submitted to the Children's Court in a case about a young child whose parents had been charged in relation to sexual offences; the worker admitted to DFFH using ChatGPT for the report.","causal_attribution":"OVIC's finding, based on indicators in the report and the worker's admission to DFFH."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Report: 'OVIC found, on the balance of probabilities, that CPW1 input personal information, including names'; 'By entering personal and sensitive information about the mother, father, carer, and child into ChatGPT, CPW1 also disclosed this information to OpenAI (the company which operates ChatGPT)'; DFFH response: 'it is not possible to definitively confirm that personal information has ever been entered into ChatGPT by the Child Protection Practitioner who no longer works in the department'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Ovic found that, on the balance of probabilities, the worker had entered in personal information.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"OVIC found on the balance of probabilities that the worker entered personal information, including names, about the child, mother, father and carer into ChatGPT, disclosing it to OpenAI; the worker denied entering personal information, and DFFH says this cannot be confirmed definitively.","causal_attribution":"A regulator's finding on the balance of probabilities, contested by the worker's denial; organisations cannot see what staff typed into ChatGPT."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Report: 'First, the PA Report referenced how the child’s father used a particular toy, a doll, for sexual purposes.'; 'The report later referenced the same toy as a notable strength, in that the parents had provided the child with “age-appropriate toys”'; 'ChatGPT failed to properly understand the relevant context, and generated inappropriate and inaccurate content as a result'; 'these deficiencies in the report did not ultimately change the decision-making of either Child Protection or the Court in relation to the child'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'But it also said the report did not change the decision-making of either the child protection agency or the court.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"OVIC's report attributes inaccurate content in the report to ChatGPT: having described a doll the father had reportedly used for sexual purposes, the report later cited the same toy as a parental strength ('age-appropriate toys'), which downplayed the risk to the child; the deficiencies did not change the decisions of Child Protection or the court.","causal_attribution":"OVIC attributes the doll passage to ChatGPT from the content itself and the worker's admission of ChatGPT use."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Report: 'DFFH arranged with the Court for the PA Report to be withdrawn and a replacement one submitted. It also notified affected parties about the incident'; 'In the present case, the mother, father, and carer variously described feelings of anxiety and being overwhelmed when informed about their information being disclosed'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to OVIC's report, DFFH arranged with the court for the report to be withdrawn and replaced and notified the affected parties; the mother, father and carer described feelings of anxiety and being overwhelmed when told their information had been disclosed.","causal_attribution":"DFFH's account to OVIC; the family members' reactions are relayed by the regulator, not in their own words."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"DFFH response, 18 September 2024: 'I accept that there was an unauthorized use of ChatGPT by a Child Protection Practitioner'; 'when developing a Protection Application Report for court'; 'the Child Protection Practitioner who no longer works in the department'.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In response, the department said it accepted the findings and would work to implement the orders. It said it no longer employed the worker.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"DFFH's Secretary accepted that a child protection practitioner had used ChatGPT without authorisation for a court report and that the department breached the two privacy principles, and the department said it no longer employs the worker.","causal_attribution":"DFFH's own letter, annexed to the report."}],"effects":[{"label":"personal information about a child, the mother, father and carer was entered into ChatGPT and disclosed to OpenAI, regulator finds","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"ChatGPT-generated content in a Children's Court report downplayed the risk to the child; the report was withdrawn and replaced","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the mother, father and carer described anxiety and being overwhelmed when told of the disclosure","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://ovic.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/DFFH-ChatGPT-investigation-report-20240924-Re-upload.pdf","kind":"official_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"OVIC investigation report under s8C(2)(e) of the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic), September 2024, with the compliance notice (Annexure A) and DFFH's response letter of 18 September 2024 (Annexure B); the PDF (re-uploaded November 2024) was read in full on 2026-10-22 from ovic.vic.gov.au (HTTP 200); the report page gives 'Last updated 24 September 2024'.","independence_group":"ovic-dffh-chatgpt-investigation"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/sep/26/victoria-child-protection-chat-gpt-ban-ovic-report-ntwnfb","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Guardian (Australia), 26 September 2024, read in full on 2026-10-22 (HTTP 200). Its account comes from OVIC's report, so it shares that group. Its statement that the worker may have used ChatGPT in 100 cases does not match the report, which attributes the 100 cases to the worker's broader work unit; that statement is not relied on.","independence_group":"ovic-dffh-chatgpt-investigation"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["privacy","public_services","justice"],"unknowns":["Exactly what text the worker entered into ChatGPT; neither DFFH nor OVIC could see the prompts, and the input of personal information rests on a balance-of-probabilities finding.","The exact date of the ChatGPT use (the compliance notice says 'in or around September 2023') and of the court hearing.","Whether OpenAI retained or used the information entered.","Which people were affected in the 100 other cases with indicators of ChatGPT use, and whether their information was entered.","How DFFH has complied with the compliance notice since its first monitoring reports."],"geography":{"basis":"OVIC is Victoria's information regulator, DFFH is a Victorian government department, and the report says the affected child protection case went before the Children's Court, a Victorian court. The family's case was handled by the department in Victoria.","court_countries":["AU"],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":["AU"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-10-06 privacy clarification: a regulator's investigation report finds that a child protection worker entered a family's personal information into ChatGPT, without authorisation, and that ChatGPT-generated text minimising the risk to a child went into a court report. Relations: received_personal_information and made_claim_about. The case adds a statutory child protection setting, a court report and a compliance notice banning generative AI tools.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-22"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"OVIC's report finds that ChatGPT received personal information about the child, mother, father and carer that the worker typed in, which disclosed it to OpenAI, and that ChatGPT generated report text inaccurately describing the parents' care of the child (the doll passage), which went into a report submitted to the Children's Court and downplayed the risk to the child. The finding rests on indicators in the report text, the worker's admission of ChatGPT use and colleagues' accounts; the input of personal information was found on the balance of probabilities and the worker denied it.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Victorian child protection worker put a family's information into ChatGPT to draft a court report that minimised risk to the child, regulator finds","summary":"Victoria's Information Commissioner (OVIC) found in a report published on 24 September 2024 that a child protection worker at the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH) used ChatGPT in or around September 2023 to draft a Protection Application Report submitted to the Children's Court about a young child. On the balance of probabilities, OVIC found the worker entered personal information, including names, about the child, mother, father and carer, disclosing it to OpenAI; the worker admitted using ChatGPT but denied entering personal information. OVIC found generated content in the report described a doll that the father had reportedly used for sexual purposes as a parental strength ('age-appropriate toys'), downplaying the risk to the child, although the court's and the department's decisions did not change. The report was withdrawn and replaced, and the mother, father and carer described anxiety when told of the disclosure. OVIC found serious breaches of two privacy principles and issued a compliance notice requiring DFFH to ban and block generative AI text tools for child protection staff until November 2026; DFFH accepted the breach findings.","incidentDate":"2023-09-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-09-24","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used through its website by a child protection worker of Victoria's Department of Families, Fairness and Housing to draft a court report, without departmental authorisation (per OVIC's investigation report)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"OVIC found that personal information about a child, the mother, father and carer was entered into ChatGPT and disclosed to OpenAI, and that ChatGPT-generated content in a court report downplayed the risk to the child; the mother, father and carer described anxiety when told, according to OVIC's report.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":4,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"OVIC's report finds that personal and sensitive information about the mother, father, carer and child in this case was entered into ChatGPT (four people), and records that the mother, father and carer described anxiety when informed. OVIC says personal information had likely been entered in other cases too; those people are not counted. The worker, the court and DFFH staff are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"AU-VIC","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://ovic.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/DFFH-ChatGPT-investigation-report-20240924-Re-upload.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner: Investigation into the use of ChatGPT by a Child Protection worker (report, 24 Sep 2024)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-22T03:03:14.588614+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-22T03:03:14.588614+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["chatgpt","child-protection","court-report","privacy-regulator","unauthorised-ai-use","personal-information","victoria"]},{"id":"2025-sixth-circuit-removes-appointed-defence-lawyer-over-cocounsel-drafted-briefs-delaying-indigent-defendants-appeal","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'qualified for a two-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines for his leadership role during drug-trafficking activities.'; 'serving as court-appointed counsel for an indigent defendant through a publicly funded program'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act represented an indigent defendant appealing a two-level leadership enhancement to his drug-trafficking sentence in the Sixth Circuit.","causal_attribution":"The court's own description of the appointment and the appeal."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The first tell was the file name of the principal brief:'; '“CoCounsel Skill Results.” CoCounsel is the name of Westlaw’s internal artificial-intelligence'; 'But the purported direct quotations do not appear in their cited sources.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The first tell was the file name of the principal brief: \"CoCounsel Skill Results.\" CoCounsel is the name of Westlaw's internal artificial-intelligence platform.'; 'But the purported direct quotations do not appear in their cited sources.'; 'misrepresent the holdings of both United States v. Washington'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court found that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results', that three quotations in the briefs appear in no legal authority, and that the briefs misrepresented the holdings of two precedents.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings, quoted verbatim in the Volokh post; the opinion PDF carries the same text."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'he directed an unnamed “staff” member to'; 'upload district court documents to Westlaw’s CoCounsel program to create a first draft of the'; 'repeated that same process for the reply brief.'; 'He concedes that the three inaccurate quotations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'he directed an unnamed \"staff\" member to upload district court documents to Westlaw's CoCounsel program to create a first draft of the principal brief.'; 'He concedes that the three inaccurate quotations identified above were the product of artificial intelligence, that they do not appear in any legal authorities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyer admitted that a staff member uploaded district court documents to Westlaw's CoCounsel to create a first draft of the principal brief, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the three inaccurate quotations were produced by artificial intelligence and not verified.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's show-cause response as the court records it; the court's opinion documents the admission."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'shall not be compensated under the Criminal Justice Act for his time spent on'; 'to consider disciplinary proceedings under Sixth'; 'Disciplinary Clerk for the Kentucky Bar Association'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court ordered that the lawyer receive no Criminal Justice Act compensation for the appeal, forwarded the opinion to the circuit's chief judge to consider disciplinary proceedings, and served it on the Kentucky Bar Association's disciplinary clerk.","causal_attribution":"The court's orders."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'different appellate counsel to file new briefs—further delaying resolution of'; 'reset the briefing schedule upon appointment of replacement counsel.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"By a separate order the same day the court removed the lawyer, directed the appointment of replacement counsel, locked the briefs he had filed and reset the briefing schedule, which the court said further delayed resolution of the defendant's criminal appeal.","causal_attribution":"The court's own account of its separate order and of the delay."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'utilizing Westlaw CoCounsel “in this way for a Court of Appeals brief.”'; 'has never been disciplined over his 40-year career'; 'candor in acknowledging his improper use of artificial intelligence.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'first time utilizing Westlaw CoCounsel \"in this way for a Court of Appeals brief.\"'; 'has never been disciplined over his 40-year career'; 'his candor in acknowledging his improper use of artificial intelligence.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyer said this was his first use of CoCounsel in this way for an appeals brief and that he had not been disciplined in a 40-year career; the court acknowledged his timely response and candour while finding his conduct inexcusable.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's explanations and the court's assessment, as the opinion records them; recorded as mitigation."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'***LOCKED PURSUANT TO ORDER ENTERED 04/03/2026***APPELLANT BRIEF filed by'; 'Certificate of Service: 10/21/2025. Argument Request: not requested. [25-5623]'; '***LOCKED PURSUANT TO ORDER ENTERED 04/03/2026***REPLY BRIEF filed by Attorney'; 'Certificate of Service: 12/26/2025. [25-5623]'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The docket records that the principal brief for the defendant was filed on 21 October 2025 and the reply brief on 26 December 2025, and that both entries were locked under the order of 3 April 2026.","causal_attribution":"Clerk docket entries; they date the filings and do not describe their contents."}],"effects":[{"label":"indigent defendant's criminal appeal delayed while replacement counsel files new briefs","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"},{"label":"court-appointed lawyer denied compensation for the appeal and referred for disciplinary consideration","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0105p-06.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Sixth Circuit published per curiam opinion, No. 25-5623, decided and filed 3 April 2026; PDF read in full (HTTP 200).","independence_group":"sixth-circuit-opinion-3-apr-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/04/09/the-first-tell-was-the-file-name-of-the-principal-brief-cocounsel-skill-results/","kind":"commentary_with_filing_excerpt","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Volokh Conspiracy (Reason), 9 April 2026, quoting the same opinion at length; read in full (HTTP 200). Same origin as the opinion.","independence_group":"sixth-circuit-opinion-3-apr-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?q=docket_id%3A70724463%20BRIEF&type=rd","kind":"court_docket_index","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"CourtListener search API listing of docket entries for Sixth Circuit No. 25-5623 (RECAP), read on 2026-10-19 (HTTP 200); entry descriptions as entered by the clerk. Party and counsel names in the entries are not reproduced.","independence_group":"sixth-circuit-docket-25-5623"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["How long the appeal is delayed, and the outcome of any disciplinary proceedings."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal is from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the lawyer practises in Kentucky (opinion).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published with communicated_with and informed_decision_about: the court documents that a court-appointed defence lawyer filed briefs drafted with Westlaw's CoCounsel that carried quotations found in no authority, and, acting on those briefs, removed him, ordered new counsel and briefing that delayed the indigent defendant's criminal appeal, and denied him compensation. The harm reaches a criminal defendant who did not use the tool.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results' and that three quotations in the briefs appear in no legal authority. The lawyer admitted that a staff member used Westlaw's CoCounsel to produce the first draft, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the false quotations were produced by artificial intelligence. Reading those briefs, the court removed him, ordered new counsel and new briefs for the defendant, and denied him compensation.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Sixth Circuit removes court-appointed defence lawyer over CoCounsel-drafted briefs with false quotations, delaying an indigent defendant's appeal","summary":"In a published opinion of 3 April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed the briefs a lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act had filed for an indigent defendant appealing a sentencing enhancement in a drug-trafficking case. The court noticed that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results' and found three quotations that appear in no legal authority and misstatements of two precedents. The lawyer admitted that a staff member had used Westlaw's CoCounsel to create the first draft, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the false quotations came from artificial intelligence he did not verify. The court denied him compensation for the appeal, referred the opinion for possible disciplinary proceedings and to the Kentucky Bar Association, and by separate order removed him, locked his briefs and ordered replacement counsel to file new ones, which it said further delayed resolution of the defendant's appeal. The court acknowledged his candour and his 40 years without discipline.","incidentDate":"2025-10-21","incidentEndDate":"2026-04-03","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-04-03","aiSystem":"Westlaw CoCounsel (Thomson Reuters), used by a lawyer's staff member to produce the first drafts of a principal and a reply brief","aiProduct":"CoCounsel","aiCompany":"Thomson Reuters","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court documents that briefs drafted with Westlaw's CoCounsel and filed unverified by a court-appointed lawyer led it to remove him and order new counsel and briefs, further delaying an indigent defendant's criminal appeal; the lawyer was denied compensation for the appeal and referred for disciplinary consideration.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two: the defendant, whose appeal the court says was further delayed, and the lawyer, who was denied compensation and referred. The lawyer's staff member ran the tool and is not counted; no other harmed person is described.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0105p-06.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 25-5623, opinion decided and filed 3 April 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-19T03:16:56.688661+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-19T03:16:56.688661+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["legal","ai-fabricated-quotations","court-appointed-counsel","criminal-appeal","sanction","cocounsel"]},{"id":"2026-arizona-appeals-court-strikes-self-represented-appellants-ai-hallucinated-citations-orders-fees-sanction","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In his opening brief with the Court of Appeals, he made eight citations. The court found that six of them were deficient; two were cases that “simply do not exist.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The self-represented appellant's opening brief made eight citations; the court found six deficient, including two cases that do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings as reported by the Arizona Mirror."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"readily acknowledged that he relied on generative AI to write his brief; he admitted he did nothing to independently verify the citations","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations he acknowledged relying on generative AI to write the brief and admitted doing nothing to verify the citations.","causal_attribution":"The appellant's own acknowledgement, recorded in the opinion and reported by the Arizona Mirror."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Accordingly, citing a hallucinated case in a legal filing is sanctionable conduct; traceable to dealing with the fake citations; appeal was also rejected because there were no supportive legal authorities for his claims once the inaccurate and false citations were stricken","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that citing a hallucinated case is sanctionable regardless of intent, ordered him to pay the portion of the other party's attorney's fees traceable to the fake citations, and rejected the appeal because no supportive authority remained once the citations were struck.","causal_attribution":"The court's ruling as reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The three-judge panel noted that court rules allow for more severe sanctions, including contempt charges and monetary fines.; isn’t a trained legal professional, it opted to narrowly sanction him","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court chose this narrow sanction over contempt or fines because he said he did not intend to deceive and is not a trained legal professional.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"brief citations struck, appeal rejected and fee sanction ordered","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://kiowacountypress.net/content/arizona-court-appeals-citing-fake-ai-generated-cases-can-get-you-sanctioned-no-matter-your","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 (HTTP 200); no translation was needed. Republication of the Arizona Mirror (States Newsroom) report.","independence_group":"arizona-mirror-report-jul-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which generative AI tool the appellant used.","The amount of the fee award, which depended on the other party's documentation."],"geography":{"basis":"The brief was filed in, and the sanction imposed by, the Arizona Court of Appeals in a Maricopa County probate appeal. Residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the Arizona Mirror's report of the Court of Appeals opinion of 15 July 2026: a self-represented appellant acknowledged relying on generative AI to write a brief that cited nonexistent cases, and the court struck the citations, rejected the appeal and ordered him to pay the fees they caused. The parties are private persons and are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-18"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The appellant acknowledged in a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations that he relied on generative AI to write his opening brief, which the court found cited two nonexistent cases and misstated others; the AI-generated text reached him (communicated_with), and the court read the fabricated citations, struck them, rejected the appeal for want of authority and imposed a fee sanction for them (informed_decision_about). The tool is not named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Arizona appeals court strikes a self-represented appellant's AI-hallucinated citations, rejects his probate appeal and orders him to pay fees as a sanction","summary":"In a published opinion of July 2026, the Arizona Court of Appeals found that a self-represented appellant's opening brief in a probate dispute contained eight citations, six of them deficient, including two cases that do not exist. In a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations he acknowledged relying on generative AI to write the brief and said he did nothing to verify the citations. The court struck the inaccurate and false citations, rejected the appeal because no supportive authority remained, held that citing a hallucinated case is sanctionable whether or not it is intended, and ordered him to pay the share of the other party's attorney's fees traceable to the fake citations. Because he said he did not intend to deceive and is not legally trained, the court chose this narrow sanction over contempt or fines. It described the opinion as the first published Arizona ruling on generative AI hallucinations in filings.","incidentDate":"2026-07-15","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-07-19","aiSystem":"Generative AI, not identified in the report, that the appellant said he relied on to write his opening brief, which cited two nonexistent cases and misstated others","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court, the appellant's AI-drafted brief cited nonexistent cases; the citations were struck, the appeal was rejected and he was ordered to pay the share of the other party's attorney's fees caused by the fake citations.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used generative AI and was sanctioned.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AZ","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://kiowacountypress.net/content/arizona-court-appeals-citing-fake-ai-generated-cases-can-get-you-sanctioned-no-matter-your","primarySourceLabel":"Arizona Mirror (States Newsroom), republished by Kiowa County Press, July 2026: Arizona Court of Appeals on sanctions for fake AI-generated cases","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-18T03:14:48.762612+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-18T03:14:48.762612+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated-citations","self-represented-litigant","appeal","sanction","attorney-fees","arizona"]},{"id":"2026-caine-prize-winning-story-pangram-ai-detector-accusation-prize-review","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The central evidence of Vara’s article, “Yet Another Literary Prizewinner Seems to Be AI,” is a scan by Pangram, an AI-detection tool, which flags almost the entire story as AI-generated, with the epigraph as a notable exception.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'a recent article in The Atlantic said AI-detection software Pangram had shown his work about a boy whose family falls on hard times was entirely AI generated'; 'had been published on Sunday'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Atlantic published an article on Sunday 11 October 2026 whose central evidence was a scan by the Pangram AI-text detection tool flagging almost all of the 2026 Caine Prize-winning story as AI-generated.","causal_attribution":"The journalist's article (one origin), read through Brittle Paper's and the BBC's accounts; The Atlantic page itself was not read. The Sunday date is the BBC's."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the prize is reviewing his winning story'; 'The Caine Prize said in a statement that it is its responsibility to look into such claims, and that it is taking a “human centred approach” that supports writers during the process. It added that the process has begun'; 'launched an investigation as soon as they learned of Vara’s inquiry'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'as part of an internal investigation for the Caine Prize'; 'would be sending in documentation about his various drafts and there were ongoing conversations with all the judges and The Shallow Tales Review'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Caine Prize began a review of the winning story, which its chair told the journalist was launched as soon as the prize learned of her inquiry: it said it was its responsibility to look into such claims, and its chair said the author would send documentation of his drafts and that the prize was talking to the judges and to the story's first publisher.","causal_attribution":"The prize's own statement and its chair's interview (one origin: the Caine Prize). No finding is reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'they did have evidence of real human investigation of it before tainting the prize and tainting this winner'; 'against is it being used as a final arbiter in this case'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The prize chair told the BBC that The Atlantic should have done more human investigation before tainting the prize and the winner, and that she was against a detector being the final arbiter in this case.","causal_attribution":"The chair's own words in a BBC interview (one origin)."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'For the avoidance of doubt, I wrote The Blue Fighter,\" he posted on X'; 'had \"a concrete, documented history\" about the story's inspiration'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'literary agency has said it is confident the story is his own work'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The author denied using AI to write the story and said he had a documented history of its inspiration and development; his literary agency said it was confident the story was his own work.","causal_attribution":"The author's own statement and his agency's (one side of the dispute); whether AI was used is unestablished."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Pangram's internal research showed its assessments were rarely wrong'; 'was \"not going to be 100% accurate\"'; 'she had also used her own judgment'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Vara closes by saying she may well be wrong.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The journalist said Pangram's internal research shows its assessments are rarely wrong and that she also relied on her own judgement, while conceding that no AI-detection product is fully accurate.","causal_attribution":"The journalist's own account (one origin), reported by the BBC interview and Brittle Paper's summary of the article."}],"effects":[{"label":"a prize-winning story placed under the Caine Prize's review, with the author asked to document his drafts, after a published AI-detector accusation","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"a prize winner publicly accused of submitting an AI-written story on the strength of an AI-detector scan","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm4g1rekpgnjo","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 (live, HTTP 200; datePublished 13 October 2026). BBC's own Front Row and Newsday interviews with the prize chair, the journalist and the author, plus the author's X statement.","independence_group":"bbc-front-row"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://brittlepaper.com/2026/10/african-literary-community-pushes-back-on-the-atlantics-ai-claims-about-10000-caine-prize-winner-simbarashe-steyn-kundizeza/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 (live, HTTP 200; dated 13 October 2026). Summarises The Atlantic's article and quotes the Caine Prize statement; The Atlantic page itself returned HTTP 403.","independence_group":"brittle-paper"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["work"],"unknowns":["Whether generative AI was used to write the story; the author denies it and the prize has announced no finding.","The outcome of the Caine Prize review and whether the prize will be withdrawn.","The Atlantic's article was not read directly (HTTP 403); its methods are known through the BBC's and Brittle Paper's accounts.","Any personal or financial effect on the author beyond the public accusation and the review."],"geography":{"basis":"No source states where the accusation, the review or the author is located for this case. The prize is the Caine Prize for African Writing and the author is described as Zimbabwean, but nationality and the publisher's or prize's base are not used to locate the event.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a contextual case: an AI-text detector's output about a prize-winning story was the central evidence of a national magazine's accusation; the Caine Prize opened a review when it learned of the journalist's inquiry and asked the author for his drafts (BBC; Brittle Paper). AI authorship is disputed and unproven; the author's denial and the prize chair's objection to detector evidence are recorded. Low severity; the author is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The output: a Pangram AI-text detector scan that flagged almost the entire winning story as AI-generated, which was the central evidence of The Atlantic's article (c1; Brittle Paper; BBC). The connection to the harm: the Caine Prize began a review when it learned of the journalist's inquiry, which rested on the scan, and continued it after the article of the story and asked the author for documentation of his drafts (c2), and its chair said the article had tainted the winner (c3). The detector's output is a claim about the author's text; whether it is correct is disputed, as the author denies using AI (c4) and the prize chair rejects a detector as the final arbiter. The Atlantic page itself was not read, so the scan is known through the BBC's and Brittle Paper's accounts (made_claim_about).","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Caine Prize reviews its 2026 winning story after a Pangram AI-detector scan cited by The Atlantic flagged it as AI-generated; the author denies using AI","summary":"A week after a Zimbabwean writer won the £10,000 2026 Caine Prize for African Writing, The Atlantic published an article on Sunday 11 October 2026 whose central evidence was a scan by Pangram, an AI-text detection tool, flagging almost the entire winning story as AI-generated. The Caine Prize said it had begun a review: according to its chair, the author would send documentation of his drafts and the prize was talking to the judges and to the magazine that first published the story. The chair told the BBC that The Atlantic had published before a full investigation, tainting the prize and the winner, and said a detector should not be the final arbiter. The author denied using AI and said he had a documented history of the story's development; his literary agency said it was confident the story was his own work. No finding has been announced.","incidentDate":"2026-10-11","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-13","aiSystem":"Pangram, an AI-text detection tool, used by The Atlantic's journalist to scan the winning story (BBC; Brittle Paper); the alleged use of generative AI to write the story is disputed","aiProduct":"Pangram AI-text detector","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A prize-winning author was publicly accused, on the strength of an AI-text detector's scan reported by The Atlantic, of submitting an AI-written story; the Caine Prize opened a review of the winning story and asked for documentation of his drafts, and the prize chair said the article had tainted the winner (BBC; Brittle Paper). The author denies using AI.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the prize winner whose story was flagged by the detector and placed under the prize's review (BBC; Brittle Paper). Writers who commented on social media are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm4g1rekpgnjo","primarySourceLabel":"BBC News, 13 October 2026: Zimbabwean author denies using AI to write award-winning story","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:12:41.50207+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:12:41.50207+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-text-detector","pangram","literary-prize","caine-prize","ai-authorship-accusation","disputed"]},{"id":"2026-alabama-supreme-court-dismisses-family-trust-appeal-over-lawyer-ai-hallucinated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'filed briefs in this appeal that contain numerous invalid, inaccurate, and/or irrelevant citations to legal authorities'; 'They appear to be artificial-intelligence (\"AI\") \"hallucinations,\" i.e., fake authorities created by an AI system'; 'Most of the legal authorities in the briefs are misquoted or nonexistent'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appellants' lawyer filed briefs whose citations the court found numerous, invalid, inaccurate or irrelevant, most of them misquoted or nonexistent, and which the court said appear to be AI hallucinations.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'first use of an AI research tool that summarized commentary not readily available through standard legal databases'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In a reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, the lawyer attributed two misquotations to an AI research tool that summarised commentary.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's statement as quoted in the opinion."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall admitted that many of the legal authorities in his briefs do not exist and that he improperly used AI to obtain those authorities'; 'Hall also informed the Court that he had self-reported his actions to the Alabama State Bar'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At the 4 February 2026 show-cause hearing the lawyer admitted that many authorities in his briefs did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them, and said he had self-reported to the Alabama State Bar.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the hearing."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Because those briefs are grossly deficient under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal'; 'the dismissal of this appeal is imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts before us'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court dismissed the appeal because the briefs were grossly deficient, and said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall is hereby ordered to pay attorney fees and costs'; 'in the amount of $17,200'; 'Hall is ordered to pay double costs'; 'We also refer Hall to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court ordered the lawyer to pay $17,200 in attorney fees and costs and double costs of the appeal, and referred him to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'SELLERS, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I do not agree that dismissal of the appeal is appropriate as a sanction for the conduct of a lawyer'; 'I would affirm the judgment of the Mobile Circuit'; 'MENDHEIM, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I concur in the dismissal of this appeal'; 'His representation on appeal was of no benefit to them'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Justice Sellers, concurring in part and dissenting in part, disagreed that dismissal was an appropriate sanction for a lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits; Justice Mendheim, who concurred in the dismissal, wrote that the lawyer's representation on appeal was of no benefit to the clients.","causal_attribution":"Two separate opinions in the same record; neither is the court's holding."}],"effects":[{"label":"two appellants' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on AI-obtained authorities that were fake or misquoted","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 and double costs, barred from filing alone in the court and referred to the state bar","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from CourtListener's archived copy of this court PDF (storage.courtlistener.com, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext) because the court portal URL returned HTTP 403 to the agent; no translation was needed.","independence_group":"alabama-supreme-court-sc-2025-0106"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the lawyer used; the opinion names none.","Whether the dismissal changed the clients' substantive position; the trial court's summary judgment stands, the main opinion does not decide the merits, and one justice would have affirmed the judgment.","The outcome of the Alabama State Bar referral."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal was decided by the Supreme Court of Alabama on appeal from the Mobile Circuit Court. The appellants' residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the Supreme Court of Alabama's opinion establishes that it dismissed two appellants' appeal as a sanction after their lawyer filed briefs built on fabricated authorities that he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI, and that it sanctioned the lawyer and referred him to the state bar. The opinion was read in full.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found the briefs' authorities appeared to be AI hallucinations, the lawyer admitted at the show-cause hearing that he had improperly used AI to obtain authorities that do not exist, and his reply-brief footnote quoted by the court says an AI research tool misattributed quotations. The AI output reached the court through the briefs, and the court dismissed the clients' appeal because those briefs rested on fabricated authorities (informed_decision_about for the clients); the lawyer received the fabricated output from the tool (communicated_with) and was sanctioned.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Alabama Supreme Court dismisses two siblings' family-trust appeal as a sanction after their lawyer admits using AI that produced fake citations","summary":"On 24 April 2026 the Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed an appeal by two siblings in a family dispute over living trusts because their lawyer, W. Perry Hall, had filed briefs in which most of the legal authorities were misquoted or did not exist. The court said they appeared to be AI hallucinations, and at a show-cause hearing in February 2026 Hall admitted that many authorities did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them. The court ordered Hall to pay the opposing party's fees and costs of $17,200 and double appeal costs, barred him from filing in the court without a co-signing attorney and referred him to the Alabama State Bar. It said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts. One justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part, objected to dismissing the appeal as a sanction for the lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the judgment against the clients on the merits.","incidentDate":"2026-04-24","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-04-24","aiSystem":"An AI research tool that, according to the lawyer's reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, summarised legal commentary and misattributed quotations; the lawyer admitted using AI to obtain authorities that do not exist. No product is named in the opinion","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI research tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Supreme Court of Alabama, the siblings' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on authorities that were misquoted or did not exist, which he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI; the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 in fees and costs plus double appeal costs and was referred to the state bar.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One AI user: the appellate lawyer, sanctioned and referred to the bar. Two other people: the two appellants whose appeal was dismissed. The appellee, whose fees were reimbursed, is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","primarySourceLabel":"Supreme Court of Alabama, opinion in SC-2025-0106 (released 24 April 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","alabama","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","appeal-dismissed"]},{"id":"2026-karachi-teen-claude-fiction-queries-flagged-fbi-referral-detained-released","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'AI safety guide deemed question of the youth a violation of its safety code and informed the US investigation agency FBI about the suspicious activity.'; 'The US agency informed Pakistani agency about the suspected youth'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Officials said the AI's safety system deemed the youth's question a violation of its safety code and informed the FBI, which informed the Pakistani agency.","causal_attribution":"Officials quoted by one outlet; the provider has not described its report."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'According to the NCCIA, the platform’s safety system flagged the queries on September 4.'; 'The referral prompted the NCCIA to detain the youth for questioning.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the NCCIA as reported by ProPakistani, the platform's safety system flagged the queries on 4 September, the information was reportedly shared with the FBI, and the referral prompted the NCCIA to detain the youth for questioning.","causal_attribution":"NCCIA account relayed by one outlet."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The News reported that the chatbot flagged the conversation as a breach of its safety safeguards and that Anthropic subsequently reported the activity to the FBI.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The News, as relayed by Bloom Pakistan, reported that the chatbot was Anthropic's Claude, that the chatbot flagged the conversation and that Anthropic reported the activity to the FBI.","causal_attribution":"Relay of one outlet; The News was not read directly."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'and detained the suspect'; 'The youth was released after completing investigations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Authorities released him after questioning'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'He was questioned by the NCCIA and later released.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The NCCIA carried out a raid, detained the youth and released him after its investigation.","causal_attribution":"Reported by three outlets that draw on NCCIA officials or investigators; treated as one official origin."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'He told us that he was working over a fictional crime story'; 'No incident of such type happened with the youth in reality'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Officials said the youth told investigators he was working on a fictional crime story, and that nothing of the kind had happened in reality.","causal_attribution":"NCCIA official quoted by one outlet."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Investigators ultimately did not establish grounds for prosecution and released the teenager'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The News, as relayed by Bloom Pakistan, reported that investigators did not establish grounds for prosecution but remained concerned and were monitoring the situation.","causal_attribution":"Relay of one outlet."}],"effects":[{"label":"raided, detained and questioned after his chatbot queries for a story were flagged and referred via the FBI","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://arynews.tv/youth-faces-detention-seeking-help-from-ai-fictional-murder","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English-language source; no translation. ARY News, 29 September 2026, read live (HTTP 200); quotes NCCIA officials.","independence_group":"nccia-officials-karachi-2026-09"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://propakistani.pk/2026/10/02/karachi-youth-detained-after-claude-queries-trigger-fbi-referral/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English-language source; no translation. ProPakistani, 2 October 2026; text read from the Internet Archive capture (HTTP 200); cites the NCCIA.","independence_group":"nccia-officials-karachi-2026-09"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://bloompakistan.com/karachi-teen-detained-ai-crime-chat-fbi-alert/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English-language source; no translation. Bloom Pakistan, 29 September 2026, read live (HTTP 200); relays The News, which was not read directly.","independence_group":"thenews-karachi-2026-09-29"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","privacy"],"unknowns":["The date of the raid and detention, and how long he was held","What Claude replied to the queries","How the provider reviewed and reported the conversation; Anthropic and the FBI have not commented in the sources read","Whether the NCCIA took or plans any further action"],"geography":{"basis":"All three sources place the user, the raid and the detention in Karachi, Pakistan. The FBI referral passed through the United States, but no event there is described. No court proceeding is reported.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["PK"],"affected_person_countries":["PK"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a reported case: NCCIA officials quoted by ARY News and the NCCIA account reported by ProPakistani describe a chatbot safety flag on a teenager's queries for a crime story, a referral through the FBI, and his detention, questioning and release; Bloom Pakistan, relaying The News, names Claude and Anthropic's report. All claims rest on officials' accounts and are reported.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Officials quoted by ARY News say the AI's safety system deemed the youth's question a violation of its safety code and informed the FBI; ProPakistani, citing the NCCIA, says the platform's safety system flagged the queries on 4 September and the referral prompted the detention. The automated flag is the AI system's judgment about the user (made_claim_about); his exchanges with the chatbot are what it flagged (communicated_with). The News, as relayed by Bloom Pakistan, names the chatbot as Claude and says Anthropic reported the activity to the FBI. What Claude replied and how the provider's report was made are not described.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Karachi, Pakistan: teenager detained and released after Claude flagged his fiction-writing queries and the report reached the FBI, officials say","summary":"A teenager in Karachi was detained by Pakistan's National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) and later released after his questions to an AI chatbot about how a character in a crime story could be killed were flagged, according to officials quoted by ARY News (29 September 2026) and the NCCIA as cited by ProPakistani (2 October 2026). ProPakistani reports that, according to the NCCIA, the platform's safety system flagged the queries on 4 September and the information was reportedly shared with the US FBI, which passed it to Pakistani authorities; ARY reports that the NCCIA carried out a raid and detained him. Bloom Pakistan, relaying The News, names the chatbot as Anthropic's Claude and reports that Anthropic reported the activity to the FBI. Officials said he told investigators he was writing a fictional crime story, and he was released after questioning; Bloom, relaying The News, says investigators found no grounds for prosecution but remained concerned.","incidentDate":"2026-09-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-09-29","aiSystem":"Claude (Anthropic), named by an NCCIA official quoted by ARY News, by ProPakistani and by The News as relayed by Bloom Pakistan; the platform's safety system flagged the teenager's queries, and the activity was reported to the FBI. Who at the provider made the report, and what Claude replied, are not described.","aiProduct":"Claude (reported)","aiCompany":"Anthropic","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to NCCIA officials quoted by ARY News and ProPakistani, a teenager whose AI-chatbot queries for a crime story were flagged and passed to Pakistani authorities through the FBI was detained in an NCCIA raid and questioned, then released after investigators accepted that the queries concerned a fictional story.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One teenager detained and released, per ARY News (\"detained the suspect\"), ProPakistani (\"detain the youth for questioning\") and Bloom Pakistan relaying The News. He was the Claude user. No one else is reported to have suffered an adverse consequence.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"PK","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://arynews.tv/youth-faces-detention-seeking-help-from-ai-fictional-murder","primarySourceLabel":"ARY News, 29 September 2026: youth faces detention after seeking help from AI for a fictional murder","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:18.382947+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:18.382947+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["claude","anthropic","law-enforcement-report","fbi","detention","released-without-charge","minor","pakistan","fiction-writing"]},{"id":"2026-ninth-circuit-immigration-lawyers-suspended-over-ai-hallucinated-citations-board-reciprocal-suspension","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sethi filed an opening brief in this case with multiple fabricated citations and quotations'; 'Sethi cited two cases that do not exist and never existed'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The opening brief filed for the asylum petitioners and signed by Sethi cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to real opinions that do not contain them.","causal_attribution":"The court's own finding in its order."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'to which Rounds said that AI “was not used.”'; 'Rounds finally conceded that it was “possible” that AI might have been used by the individual who drafted the briefs'; 'Sethi Law Group employs law school graduates, who are not yet licensed attorneys, to write briefs'; 'that no licensed attorney read the cases cited by the unlicensed brief writer'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At oral argument Rounds said AI was not used and later conceded it was possible that the person who drafted the briefs had used AI; the drafter was an unlicensed law graduate whose citations no licensed attorney read.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the oral argument and of the attorneys' response."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'that the errors were the product of unauthorized AI use by their Brief Writers and a failure to cite check'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Responding to the order to show cause, the attorneys conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by their brief writers and a failure to check citations.","causal_attribution":"The attorneys' concession as recorded by the court; no AI tool, prompt or output was identified."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Neither of them suspected the use of generative AI because the Firm prohibited its use and required the Brief Writers to check all their citations'; 'it is beyond belief that he knew for a fact that it was not used'; 'is owed to this repeated failure of candor'; 'We do not sanction Sethi and Rounds for the simple fact that they or'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The attorneys said that at the time of the motion to correct they did not suspect AI because the firm prohibited its use; the court found that Rounds could not have known AI was not used, said it was not sanctioning AI use as such, and attributed the severity of discipline to their repeated failure of candour.","causal_attribution":"The attorneys' explanation and the court's findings, both from the order."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sethi and Rounds are each personally sanctioned in the amount of $2,500'; 'Sethi and Rounds are hereby suspended from practice before this Court for a period of six months starting ten days after this Order is filed'; 'provide a copy of this Order to their clients'; 'serve a copy of this Order on the State Bar of California'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Ninth Circuit fined each attorney $2,500, suspended both from practice before the court for six months, ordered them to give the order to their clients in every pending case, and directed service of the order on the State Bar of California.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's order."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Board hereby suspends the respondent from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Immigration Courts, and DHS for 6 months, effective June 13, 2026.'; 'On July 1, 2026, the Board granted the Joint Petition for Immediate Suspension.'; 'previously issued unpublished on September 15, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Board of Immigration Appeals suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and DHS for six months, effective 13 June 2026, after granting an immediate suspension on 1 July 2026, and designated the decision as precedent after first issuing it unpublished on 15 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"Established by the Board's decision."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'the respondent contests the sufficiency of the evidence that he knew that certain errors in his filings were caused by the use of artificial intelligence'; 'the respondent’s claims of hardship to his clients are conclusory'; 'the application of our rules of attorney discipline to misconduct related to the use of AI is not an “outlier penalty,” as the respondent claims'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Before the Board, Sethi disputed that he knew AI had been used and argued that suspension would harm his clients and was an outlier penalty for AI-related misconduct; the Board rejected these arguments.","causal_attribution":"The respondent's arguments and the Board's ruling as stated in the decision."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The petition for review, which we granted'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court granted the asylum petitioners' petition for review.","causal_attribution":"The court's statement; it does not address any effect of the sanctions on the clients."}],"effects":[{"label":"two attorneys were fined and suspended from practice before a federal appeals court, and one was suspended from immigration practice, over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and false statements about them","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/03/24-4790.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from the court's own site (HTTP 200, PDF text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"ninth-circuit-order-24-4790"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463666/dl?inline","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from the court's own site (HTTP 200, PDF text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was needed.","independence_group":"bia-matter-of-sethi"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the brief writers used; the order records only the attorneys' concession that AI use was probable.","Whether the State Bar of California opened proceedings after the referral.","Whether the suspensions affected the attorneys' clients; the Board found the hardship claims conclusory and no source describes a harmed client.","The date the opening brief was filed; the inspected sources do not state it."],"geography":{"basis":"The briefs were filed in and sanctioned by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the reciprocal suspension was imposed by the US Board of Immigration Appeals; the order describes the firm as based in Orange County, California. The attorneys' residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a court decision about two attorneys informed by AI-generated fabricated authorities in their briefs: the Ninth Circuit's order fines and suspends two attorneys for filing briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and for repeatedly denying the AI source, and the Board of Immigration Appeals imposes a reciprocal suspension on one of them. Both records were read in full from the courts' own sites.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is two courts' response to AI use in filings: the Ninth Circuit order describes briefs with nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations, records the attorneys' concession that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's brief writers, and imposes fines and a six-month suspension for filing them and for repeatedly denying the AI source; the Board of Immigration Appeals imposed a reciprocal suspension on that basis. The court read the fabricated authorities in the briefs, identified them and based its discipline of the two attorneys on filing them and on their statements about their source, so the AI output informed a decision about them (informed_decision_about); no tool is named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Ninth Circuit fines and suspends two immigration lawyers over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and denials of AI use; immigration board follows","summary":"On 3 June 2026 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit fined immigration attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds $2,500 each and suspended both from practice before the court for six months. Briefs filed in an asylum petition for review cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to opinions that do not contain them. In a motion to correct, the attorneys called the errors typographical, and at oral argument Rounds twice said AI was not used. In their response to the court's order to show cause, they conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's unlicensed brief writers and a failure to check citations. The court said the suspension was owed to their repeated failure of candour. The Board of Immigration Appeals then suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security for six months, effective 13 June 2026, and designated that decision as a precedent on 1 October 2026.","incidentDate":"2026-06-03","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-06-03","aiSystem":"Generative AI that, according to the attorneys' concession recorded by the Ninth Circuit, the firm's unlicensed brief writers probably used against firm policy; no tool is named in the order or the Board's decision","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Ninth Circuit's order, both attorneys were fined $2,500 and suspended from practice before the court for six months over briefs whose AI-hallucinated citations they had denied were AI errors; according to the Board of Immigration Appeals, one of them was then suspended from practice before the immigration courts, the Board and DHS for six months.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two attorneys, each named in the Ninth Circuit order as fined and suspended; the Board's reciprocal suspension concerns one of them. The asylum applicants are not counted: the court granted their petition for review and no source reports harm to them.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/03/24-4790.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, order in No. 24-4790 (3 June 2026): attorney discipline over AI-hallucinated citations","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:02:36.457192+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:02:36.457192+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","legal-profession","sanction","suspension","hallucinated-citations","immigration"]},{"id":"2026-goias-electoral-court-judgment-removing-councillor-suspended-over-suspected-unsupervised-ai-drafting","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'acórdão feito pelo Tribunal Regional Eleitoral de Goiás (TRE-GO), que cassou o mandato da vereadora Aava Santiago (PSB)'; 'no texto que determinou a cassação por infidelidade partidária'; 'A decisão havia sido mantida nesta terça-feira (6) e encerrava a condição suspensiva do processo'; 'Nesta sexta-feira (9), Michel Magul (PSDB) havia assumido a vaga de Aava Santiago na Câmara Municipal.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The TRE-GO judgment removed councillor Aava Santiago from office for party infidelity; it was upheld on 6 October 2026, ending its suspensive condition, and a substitute took her seat on 9 October.","causal_attribution":"G1's account of the electoral proceedings."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'No documento, a vereadora alega que no texto final da decisão há comandos, instruções e registros de conferência que revelariam o possível uso de IA com falhas na revisão humana.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A parlamentar acionou o CNJ alegando que o texto final do julgamento continha comandos de conferência, instruções e registros de revisão que indicariam possível utilização de inteligência artificial sem a supervisão humana exigida pela Resolução CNJ nº 615/2025.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The councillor alleged to the CNJ that the final text of the judgment contained commands, instructions and review records indicating the use of artificial intelligence without the human supervision required by CNJ Resolution 615/2025.","causal_attribution":"The councillor's allegation, as both outlets report it; the petition was not inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'evidencia, em tese, a existência de anotações que aparentam corresponder a instruções internas de revisão, destinadas justamente à conferência da correção de premissas fáticas e jurídicas utilizadas na construção da fundamentação do julgado'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'A liminar foi concedida nesta sexta-feira (9) pelo corregedor nacional de Justiça, ministro Benedito Gonçalves.'; 'Na decisão, Benedito Gonçalves considerou plausíveis, em análise preliminar, as alegações de descumprimento das regras de governança, supervisão humana e controle da utilização de inteligência artificial no Judiciário.'; 'O corregedor determinou a suspensão cautelar dos efeitos do acórdão e dos atos administrativos dele decorrentes.'; 'O TRE-GO terá prazo de 15 dias para prestar informações sobre o caso.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 9 October 2026 the national inspector of justice found, on a preliminary analysis, the allegations of non-compliance with the CNJ's AI supervision rules plausible, writing that the passages reproduced in the petition show in theory annotations that appear to be internal review instructions; he suspended the judgment's effects and gave the TRE-GO 15 days to report.","causal_attribution":"The inspector's preliminary finding as relayed by both outlets from the same decision; it is not a finding that AI was used."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Embora Benedito Gonçalves tenha ressaltado que a medida não representa revisão do mérito nem declaração de nulidade do julgamento eleitoral'; 'A eventual utilização irregular de inteligência artificial ainda será objeto de apuração.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'A decisão liminar do CNJ possui caráter instrumental e provisório, motivada por questões formais de procedimento administrativo e governança no âmbito do tribunal.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The inspector stated that the suspension neither reviews the merits nor declares the electoral judgment void, and that the possible irregular use of AI is still to be investigated; the substitute described the injunction as provisional and procedural.","causal_attribution":"Limits stated by the inspector and the substitute; they bound how far the removal can be attributed to AI drafting."}],"effects":[{"label":"an elected councillor was removed from her seat by a judgment she says shows signs of unsupervised AI use, until the national inspector suspended it","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://g1.globo.com/go/goias/noticia/2026/10/10/cnj-suspende-a-cassacao-do-mandato-da-vereadora-aava-santiago.ghtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in full in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. G1 quotes the inspector's decision and statements from the councillor's office and the substitute; the CNJ decision and the petition were not themselves inspected.","independence_group":"g1-goias-reporting"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://jurinews.com.br/destaques-ultimas/cnj-suspende-cassacao-da-vereadora-aava-santiago-apos-suspeita-de-falhas-no-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read in full in Portuguese by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. Jurinews reports the CNJ injunction; the decision itself was not inspected.","independence_group":"jurinews-reporting"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which passages of the judgment contain the disputed annotations, and which tool, if any, produced them.","Whether AI-drafted text affected the July 2026 merits vote or only the later judgment text.","The TRE-GO's response to the CNJ and the outcome of the CNJ investigation."],"geography":{"basis":"The removal concerns a seat on the Goiânia city council, Goiás, Brazil, decided by the Regional Electoral Court of Goiás and suspended by Brazil's National Council of Justice (G1, Jurinews). The councillor holds office in Goiânia.","court_countries":["BR"],"event_countries":["BR"],"affected_person_countries":["BR"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the national inspector of justice, after examining passages from an electoral court judgment that removed a councillor from office, found her allegation of unsupervised generative-AI drafting plausible on a preliminary analysis and suspended the judgment the day a substitute took her seat. AI use remains suspected and is attributed to her allegation and the inspector's preliminary finding.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-13"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The output at issue is text in the TRE-GO judgment about the councillor: she alleges, and G1 and Jurinews report, that the final text contained commands, instructions and review records indicating AI use without human review. The national inspector of justice, who examined the passages reproduced in her petition, wrote that they show in theory annotations that appear to be internal review instructions for checking the premises of the judgment's reasoning, and found the allegation of non-compliance with the CNJ's AI supervision rules plausible on a preliminary analysis. That judgment removed her from office until he suspended it. No tool is named, the passages are not reproduced, and AI use has not been established; the merits vote of July 2026 was made by the judges.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Goiás, Brazil: national judicial inspector suspends an electoral court judgment removing a councillor who alleged signs of unsupervised AI drafting","summary":"Goiânia city councillor Aava Santiago (PSB) told Brazil's National Council of Justice (CNJ) that the final text of a judgment of the Regional Electoral Court of Goiás (TRE-GO), which removed her from office for party infidelity, contained commands, instructions and review records indicating the use of artificial intelligence without the human supervision that CNJ Resolution 615/2025 requires. On 9 October 2026, the day a substitute took her seat, the national inspector of justice, Minister Benedito Gonçalves, found the allegations plausible on a preliminary reading, suspended the judgment and the administrative acts that followed from it, and gave the court 15 days to explain its review procedures, G1 and Jurinews report. The suspension does not review the merits of the removal, and whether AI was used irregularly has yet to be investigated.","incidentDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-10","aiSystem":"Generative artificial intelligence allegedly used in drafting the TRE-GO judgment; no tool is named, and its use is alleged by the councillor and found plausible only on a preliminary reading by the national inspector of justice","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool (suspected)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to G1 and Jurinews, a judgment that the councillor says shows signs of AI use without the required human review removed her from her council seat, and a substitute took the seat on 9 October 2026 before the national inspector of justice suspended the judgment the same day. The AI connection is her allegation, found plausible only on a preliminary reading.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the councillor removed by the judgment whose drafting is disputed. Voters and the council are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"BR-GO","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://g1.globo.com/go/goias/noticia/2026/10/10/cnj-suspende-a-cassacao-do-mandato-da-vereadora-aava-santiago.ghtml","primarySourceLabel":"G1 Goiás, 10 October 2026: CNJ suspends the removal of councillor Aava Santiago","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:09.553524+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:09.553524+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["brazil","electoral-court","suspected-judicial-ai-use","human-supervision","cnj","injunction"]},{"id":"2025-quebec-appeal-court-costs-self-represented-appellant-ai-drafted-filings-nonexistent-judgments","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Elle réclame aussi 10 000 $ en dommages-intérêts'; 'références juridiques inexistantes générées par l’intelligence artificielle dans ses actes de procédure'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The respondent asked the Court of Appeal for $10,000 in damages, alleging that the appellant had included non-existent legal references generated by artificial intelligence in his filings.","causal_attribution":"The decision documents that the respondent made this request; the allegation is hers."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'parce qu’il a utilisé l’intelligence artificielle pour la rédaction'; 'déclaration d’appel et de son exposé, qui comportent deux références à des arrêts inexistants et une référence inexacte quant à un paragraphe cité'; 'L’appelant a contrevenu à cet Avis de la Juge en chef'; 'une forme de négligence plutôt que de la mauvaise foi'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Ruling on the respondent's request, the court described the appellant's notice of appeal and brief as written with artificial intelligence and as containing two references to non-existent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph, and found that he had breached the Chief Justice's notice on AI use through negligence rather than bad faith.","causal_attribution":"Finding stated in the Court of Appeal decision of 1 October 2026; the decision does not name the tool."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'une telle connaissance de la part de l’appelant n’a pas été démontrée'; 'il y a lieu de le condamner aux frais de justice en vertu de l’article 340 C.p.c.'; 'en matière familiale, de chacune'; 'REJETTE la demande visant à sanctionner un manquement au déroulement'; 'LE TOUT, avec les frais de justice en faveur de l’intimée.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Because knowledge of the invented references was not shown, the court rejected the separate monetary sanction but ordered court costs against the appellant under article 340 C.p.c. to sanction the conduct.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the decision; the costs are the court's response to the AI-drafted filings."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'ACCUEILLE en partie l’appel'; 'peine de 100 heures de travail d’utilité sociale'; 'une mesure coercitive d’emprisonnement de 30 jours'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On the merits the court partly allowed the appeal for reasons unrelated to AI and reduced the contempt penalty to 100 hours of community work and 30 days of coercive imprisonment.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the decision; the contempt arose from non-compliance with family-court orders, not from AI use."}],"effects":[{"label":"a self-represented appellant was ordered to pay court costs because his AI-drafted appeal filings cited non-existent judgments","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3266/Droit-de-la-famille-261553-2026-QCCA-1300.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read in full in French by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 from the copy of the decision hosted by the AI Hallucination Cases database (PDF, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator or reviewer was involved. The locators quote the French original.","independence_group":"qcca-2026-qcca-1300-decision"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the appellant used and what it produced beyond the two non-existent judgments and the inaccurate paragraph reference.","The amount of the court costs ordered against the appellant.","Whether the appellant has complied with the underlying orders or served the coercive imprisonment."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal was heard and decided by the Quebec Court of Appeal from a Quebec Superior Court judgment (decision caption and paragraph 1), and the filings were made in that court. The decision states no residence for the appellant, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["CA"],"event_countries":["CA"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the court's own decision: the Quebec Court of Appeal described a self-represented appellant's appeal filings as written with AI and as citing non-existent judgments, held that he had breached its AI notice and ordered costs against him. The facts are documented by the decision; the appellant is a private party in a family matter and is not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Ruling on the respondent's request (paragraph 28), the Quebec Court of Appeal decision describes the appellant's notice of appeal and brief as written with artificial intelligence and as containing two references to non-existent judgments and an inaccurate paragraph reference. The court treated that AI drafting and those references as established: it held that he had breached its AI notice (paragraph 30), contrasted his lack of shown knowledge of the hallucinations with an earlier case (paragraphs 31-32) and ordered costs against him for that reason. The AI output reached him as drafted text he filed (communicated_with) and informed the court's costs decision about him (informed_decision_about). The decision does not identify the tool or quote its output.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Quebec Court of Appeal orders costs against a self-represented appellant whose AI-drafted filings cited two non-existent judgments (1 Oct 2026)","summary":"On 1 October 2026 the Quebec Court of Appeal ordered court costs against a self-represented appellant in a family-law contempt appeal as a sanction for appeal filings that, in the court's description, he had written with artificial intelligence and that contained two references to non-existent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph. The court held that AI may be used to draft appeal filings only if the litigant verifies the authorities, found that he had breached the Chief Justice's notice on AI use, and described his conduct as negligence rather than bad faith. It rejected the respondent's request for a separate $10,000 sanction and, for reasons unrelated to AI, reduced the contempt penalty imposed at first instance. The decision does not name the AI tool.","incidentDate":"2025-12-15","incidentEndDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-01","aiSystem":"Artificial intelligence, not identified in the decision, which the self-represented appellant used to draft his notice of appeal and brief","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Quebec Court of Appeal ordered court costs against the self-represented appellant as a sanction for filings he drafted with AI that cited non-existent judgments, holding that he breached the court's AI notice through negligence (2026 QCCA 1300, 1 October 2026). The amount of the costs is not stated.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used AI to draft the filings and against whom costs were ordered. The respondent and other family members are not counted as harmed by the AI-related sanction.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3266/Droit-de-la-famille-261553-2026-QCCA-1300.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Quebec Court of Appeal, Droit de la famille — 261553, 2026 QCCA 1300, 1 October 2026 (copy hosted by the AI Hallucination Cases database)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:20.356128+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:20.356128+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated_citations","courts","self_represented_litigant","costs_order","family_law","canada","quebec"]},{"id":"2026-switzerland-grok-generated-sexist-insults-about-finance-minister-criminal-complaint-bern-investigation","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Am 10. März hat es auch eine Schweizer Politikerin erwischt: Bundesrätin Karin Keller-Sutter. Es war der Schweizer Peter P.*, der Grok im Verlauf einer generellen «Roast»-Diskussion mit einem Prompt gezielt animierte'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Ein Nutzer hatte den Bot am 10. März gezielt zu Beleidigungen gegen Keller-Sutter aufgefordert.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'A user of the social network X prompted the AI Grok chatbot to conjure insults against the minister.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 10 March 2026 a Swiss X user, during a roast thread, prompted Grok to attack Federal Councillor Karin Keller-Sutter in hard street slang.","causal_attribution":"CH Media's report of the prompt from the post it saw; Keystone-SDA relays Sonntagsblick's report of a user prompting Grok. The prompter's identity is a pseudonym in the sources and is not recorded here."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Mit vulgären Beschimpfungen. Mit beleidigenden Körper- und Charakterangriffen. Mit abwertender und sexualisierter Sprache.' and 'Die sexualisierten Begriffe von Groks Entgleisungen sind im Screenshot des Posts auf X verpixelt.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Grok reagierte mit sexistischen und beleidigenden Aussagen, die öffentlich einsehbar und teilbar waren'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Grok replied on X with vulgar insults, attacks on her body and character, and degrading, sexualised language about Keller-Sutter, and the reply was publicly visible and shareable.","causal_attribution":"CH Media's description of Grok's post from a screenshot; both articles come from the same media group, so the claim rests on one reporting chain."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Keller-Sutter erfuhr am Folgetag davon. Kurz darauf wurde der Beitrag gelöscht.' and '«Es war eine harmlose technische Übung, um zu sehen, was mit diesem Grok möglich ist»'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Er löschte seinen «Roast»-Prompt und auch die Antwort von Grok.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Keller-Sutter learned of the post the next day, and the user deleted his prompt and Grok's reply shortly afterwards; the user later told Tamedia it was a harmless technical exercise.","causal_attribution":"CH Media reporting; the user's comment is his own account relayed from Tamedia."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the Bern public prosecutor's office has opened an investigation over insult and defamation.' and 'The minister’s criminal complaint targets “unknown persons”.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'le Ministère public bernois a ouvert une enquête pour injures et diffamation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'Inzwischen hat die Bundesrätin Strafanzeige wegen Verleumdung und Beschimpfung eingereicht.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Keller-Sutter filed a criminal complaint against unknown persons, and the Bern public prosecutor's office confirmed to Keystone-SDA that it had opened an investigation for insult and defamation.","causal_attribution":"The prosecutor's confirmation to Keystone-SDA and statements by Keller-Sutter's spokesperson; the investigation has reached no reported finding."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'«Solcher Frauenhass darf nicht als normal oder akzeptabel empfunden werden», wurde Hollenstein zitiert.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'«Der Verbreitung solcher sexistischer Texte muss eine Grenze gesetzt werden'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Keller-Sutter's spokesperson said such misogyny must not be seen as normal or acceptable, and the finance department said the spread of such sexist texts must be limited.","causal_attribution":"Official statements by the minister's spokesperson and department."}],"effects":[{"label":"sexist and degrading insults about a named minister generated and posted publicly by a chatbot","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"criminal complaint and prosecutor investigation for insult and defamation","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.watson.ch/schweiz/bundesrat/406055717-ki-chatbot-grok-von-elon-musk-beschimpft-keller-sutter-prozess-droht","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"de","translation_note":"Read in German on 2026-10-12 from the publisher page (full article text); the research agent (an AI) translated the passages relied on into English for this record, and no human translator reviewed them. The article credits bzbasel.ch (CH Media).","independence_group":"ch-media"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/schweiz/keller-sutter-reicht-strafanzeige-gegen-elon-musks-ki-grok-ein-ld.4147350","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"de","translation_note":"Read in German on 2026-10-12 from the publisher page (full article text); the research agent (an AI) translated the passages relied on into English for this record, and no human translator reviewed them. Same newsroom group as s1 (CH Media); it relays Tamedia for the complaint and the user's comment.","independence_group":"ch-media"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/various/ai-chatbot-criminal-investigation-following-karin-keller-sutters-complaint/91249480","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-12 from the publisher page; swissinfo.ch states that it translates selected news agency copy with automatic translation tools and that a journalist then reviews the translation, so the English text is a reviewed machine translation of a Keystone-SDA report. No further translation by the research agent (an AI) was needed.","independence_group":"keystone-sda"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.swissinfo.ch/fre/chatbot-dia%3aenqu%c3%aate-p%c3%a9nale-apr%c3%a8s-la-plainte-de-karin-keller-sutter/91248423","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read in French on 2026-10-12 from the publisher page (Keystone-ATS copy); the research agent (an AI) translated the passages relied on into English for this record, and no human translator reviewed them. Same agency as s3.","independence_group":"keystone-sda"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["public_services","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The full text of Grok's reply as posted; the sources quote parts and describe the rest from a screenshot.","How many people saw or shared the reply before it was deleted.","Whether the investigation has identified anyone or reached any decision, and whether xAI or X responded.","Keller-Sutter's own description of any personal effect; only her spokesperson and department are quoted.","Where the user was when he prompted Grok."],"geography":{"basis":"Keller-Sutter is a member of the Swiss Federal Council and head of its finance department, the office through which the reply targeted her, and the Bern public prosecutor's office opened the investigation. The sources call the user Swiss but do not say where he prompted Grok or where the reply was posted from, so the event country is left unknown; the investigation is not a court proceeding.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["CH"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on CH Media's description, from a screenshot, of Grok's own reply on X insulting Federal Councillor Keller-Sutter in sexist and degrading terms after a user asked for a roast, together with Keystone-SDA's report that the Bern prosecutor opened an investigation for insult and defamation on her complaint. The generated reply is the AI output and the public abuse of the named minister is the reported harm. The case adds a criminal investigation by a public prosecutor as a legal outcome. Claims stay reported because each rests on one reporting chain or on official statements.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"watson (CH Media) describes Grok's own reply on X, from a screenshot of the post: after a user asked for a hard street-slang roast of the minister, Grok answered that it would and wrote vulgar insults, attacks on her body and character, and degrading, sexualised language about her (\"Mit vulgären Beschimpfungen. Mit beleidigenden Körper- und Charakterangriffen. Mit abwertender und sexualisierter Sprache.\"). The Aargauer Zeitung reports that Grok's statements were publicly visible and shareable, and Keystone-SDA reports that a user prompted Grok to produce insults against the minister. The generated reply is the material her criminal complaint for insult and defamation concerns.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Switzerland: Grok posted sexist insults about Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter on X at a user's prompt; her complaint led to a criminal investigation","summary":"On 10 March 2026, according to CH Media reporting published by watson, a Swiss X user taking part in a \"roast\" thread asked xAI's chatbot Grok to attack Federal Councillor Karin Keller-Sutter, Switzerland's finance minister, in hard street slang. Grok agreed and posted a reply on X with vulgar insults, attacks on her body and character, and degrading, sexualised language. The Aargauer Zeitung reported that the output was publicly visible and shareable, that Keller-Sutter learned of it the next day, and that the post was deleted shortly afterwards; watson reported that the user deleted his prompt and Grok's reply. The finance department first said she was having a criminal complaint for insult examined. Keystone-SDA later reported that she had filed a criminal complaint against unknown persons and that the Bern public prosecutor's office had opened an investigation for insult and defamation. Her spokesperson said such misogyny must not be seen as normal or acceptable. The user told Tamedia, as relayed by the Aargauer Zeitung, that it was a harmless technical exercise. No outcome of the investigation is reported.","incidentDate":"2026-03-10","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-03-15","aiSystem":"Grok, the xAI chatbot that replies to users on X, prompted by an X user during a \"roast\" thread","aiProduct":"Grok","aiCompany":"xAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Grok's reply, posted publicly on X, subjected Keller-Sutter to sexist and degrading insults that the FDP co-president who discussed it with her called a sexist insult of the ugliest and most vulgar kind. Keller-Sutter filed a criminal complaint for insult and defamation, and her spokesperson described the content as misogyny. Her own description of any personal effect is not reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: Karin Keller-Sutter, the target of Grok's reply, who filed the complaint. Other politicians targeted in other users' roast threads are not part of this event and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CH","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.watson.ch/schweiz/bundesrat/406055717-ki-chatbot-grok-von-elon-musk-beschimpft-keller-sutter-prozess-droht","primarySourceLabel":"watson, 15 March 2026: KI-Chatbot Grok von Elon Musk beschimpft Keller-Sutter, Prozess droht","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:13:18.439789+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:13:18.439789+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["grok","x","chatbot","insult","defamation","misogyny","switzerland","criminal-complaint","public-official","made-claim-about"]},{"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":"2026-nebraska-supreme-court-strikes-self-represented-appellant-brief-over-ai-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'his brief contains numerous citations'; 'to fictitious cases and misstatements of law, which are the'; 'result of his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence'; 'In light of these deficiencies, we strike'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the self-represented appellant's brief contained numerous citations to fictitious cases and misstatements of law resulting from his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence, and struck the brief.","causal_attribution":"Finding stated in the court's published opinion of 2 October 2026."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'litigants are held to the same standard as practicing attorneys'; 'relies upon nonexistent legal authority is'; 'an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions'; 'we will stop short of dismissing'; 'dismissal of the appeal in lieu of plain error review may follow'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that self-represented litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys and that submitting a brief relying on nonexistent legal authority is an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions, but stopped short of dismissing the appeal and reviewed for plain error, warning that dismissal may follow in future cases.","causal_attribution":"Holding stated in the court's published opinion."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'sanctioned him to serve a term of 90 days’ incarceration'; 'Finding no plain error, we affirm'; 'time to a period of 5 weeks and once again ordered that he pay'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Reviewing for plain error only, the court found none and affirmed the district court's contempt finding and its sanction of 90 days' incarceration with purge conditions, a temporary reduction of parenting time and an attorney-fee award.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the court's published opinion; the contempt arose from decree violations unrelated to AI."}],"effects":[{"label":"a self-represented appellant's brief was struck for AI-fabricated citations and his appeal was reviewed only for plain error","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewOpinion?docId=N00013498PUB","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library PDF (text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the opinion. HTTP 200.","independence_group":"nebraska-supreme-court-opinion-2026-10-02"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which generative AI tool the appellant used and what it produced; the opinion records only his admission and the presence of fictitious citations.","Whether the appeal would have fared differently under full review; the court reviewed for plain error and found none.","Whether the appellant has served the incarceration sanction or purged it."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal is from the District Court for Sarpy County, Nebraska, and the opinion is of the Nebraska Supreme Court (opinion caption and background). The appellant litigated the divorce in Nebraska; the opinion gives no other residence.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with) on the court's own published opinion. The appellant admitted using generative AI to prepare his brief. The Nebraska Supreme Court struck the brief because its fabricated citations resulted from that use, reviewed only for plain error and affirmed the contempt order against him (informed_decision_about). The facts are documented by the opinion; the appellant is a private party in a family case and is not named in the public text.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Nebraska Supreme Court's published opinion states that the appellant's brief contained numerous citations to fictitious cases and misstatements of law 'which are the result of his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence (AI)'. The appellant used the tool himself to prepare the brief, and its output gave him the fictitious authorities he filed (communicated_with). The court then acted on that output: it read the brief, found its authorities fictitious, struck it on that ground and limited its review to plain error (informed_decision_about). The opinion does not identify the tool or quote its output.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Nebraska Supreme Court strikes a self-represented appellant's brief over fabricated citations from admitted AI use; plain-error review only (2 Oct 2026)","summary":"On 2 October 2026 the Nebraska Supreme Court struck the appellate brief of a self-represented party appealing a contempt order in his divorce case because the brief contained numerous citations to fictitious cases and misstatements of law, which the court said were the result of his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence. The court held that self-represented litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys and that submitting a brief relying on nonexistent authority is an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions. Citing the novelty of the issue for self-represented parties, it stopped short of dismissing the appeal and reviewed only for plain error, finding none and affirming the district court's contempt finding, its sanction of 90 days' incarceration with purge conditions, a temporary reduction of his parenting time and an attorney-fee award. The court warned that in future cases dismissal of the appeal may follow. The opinion does not name the AI tool.","incidentDate":"2026-10-02","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-02","aiSystem":"Generative artificial intelligence, not identified in the opinion, which the appellant admitted using to prepare an appellate brief that cited fictitious cases","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The appellant's brief was struck as a sanction for fabricated citations the court attributed to his admitted use of generative AI, so his appeal was reviewed only for plain error rather than on its assigned errors; the court affirmed the contempt order and 90-day incarceration sanction with purge conditions (Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, 2 October 2026). The opinion does not say whether the appeal would have succeeded under full review.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used generative AI to prepare the brief and whose brief was struck. The opposing party and the children are not counted as harmed by the AI-related sanction.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewOpinion?docId=N00013498PUB","primarySourceLabel":"Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, 322 Neb. 451, No. S-25-546, filed 2 October 2026 (court PDF, docId N00013498PUB)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:29:04.754849+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:43:37.291553+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated_citations","courts","self_represented_litigant","sanctions","united_states","nebraska"]},{"id":"2024-tasmania-parole-board-ai-hallucinated-case-law-media-condition-quashed","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"In December 2024, the Parole Board of Tasmania added a condition that she not speak \"directly or indirectly with any media outlet to claim (her) alleged innocence and/or wrongful conviction\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was replaced by a new parole condition in May 2025","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The condition was tweaked in 2025 to prevent her from communicating directly or indirectly - including through third parties and written statements - with media about her alleged innocence","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The Supreme Court declared that conditions imposed by the Parole Board of Tasmania in December 2024 and May 2025 were invalid and unlawful.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In December 2024 the Parole Board of Tasmania added a parole condition barring the parolee from communicating with media to claim her innocence or wrongful conviction, and a broader condition replaced it in May 2025.","causal_attribution":"Not a causal claim."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"used artificial intelligence to prepare a rationale justifying the parole condition, citing case law that was \"fictitious\" and likely \"AI hallucinations\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"relied upon by the board in creating the conditions, included erroneous AI information, the court was told.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"\"As we now know, those cases didn't exist,\" he said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Her counsel told the Supreme Court that the board's secretary used artificial intelligence to prepare a rationale document justifying the condition and that the case law it cited did not exist.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's statement in court is reported by ABC and AAP. These accounts do not independently verify the generation history or identify the tool. The document itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"the Board’s decision-making was affected by a document containing legal authorities that were likely AI-generated hallucinations and did not in fact exist","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Justice Estcourt also found that when the parole board made the decision to impose this condition, it had relied on a document that cited case law that was \"fictitious\" and likely \"AI hallucinations\".","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Human Rights Law Centre says the State conceded the board's decision-making was affected by a document containing nonexistent authorities likely generated by AI. ABC's 19 September report says the court found the board had relied on the document when imposing the condition.","causal_attribution":"The State's concession as reported by the applicant's representative, and the ABC's report of the court's finding. The ABC's 15 September report says the judge heard this; its 19 September report says the judge found it. The AI origin is stated as likely."},{"id":"c4","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Today in the Supreme Court in Hobart, Justice Stephen Estcourt ruled the condition was invalid because it denied her procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable, and created uncertainty.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Justice Stephen Estcourt found the condition was made without procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable and was filled with uncertainty.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"ABC and AAP report that on 15 September 2026 Justice Stephen Estcourt of the Supreme Court of Tasmania ruled the condition invalid because it denied procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable and created uncertainty.","causal_attribution":"The reported grounds of invalidity are procedural fairness, unreasonableness and uncertainty; the AI document is not reported as a separate ground."},{"id":"c5","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"The parole board decided to withdraw the condition in August and did not contest it being set aside on Tuesday.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Mr Coleridge said the parole board met and withdrew the condition that same month","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The board withdrew the condition in August 2026 and did not contest it being set aside.","causal_attribution":"Not a causal claim."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The court heard that in August","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"brought to the court's attention that the case law referred to in the document did not exist.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Her lawyers raised in August 2026 that the case law in the document did not exist, and the board withdrew the condition that month.","causal_attribution":"Counsel's sequence of events; the board refused to explain the withdrawal."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"For almost two years, the conditions imposed by the Parole Board of Tasmania prevented Ms Neill-Fraser from speaking publicly about her claimed innocence","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"she had been unable to speak publicly after Tasmania's parole board placed a condition on her release in 2024.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Any breach of parole could result in the remainder of the sentence having to be served","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"assertion":"The Human Rights Law Centre says the conditions prevented the parolee from speaking publicly about her claimed innocence for almost two years. The Guardian reports that a parole breach could have meant serving the remaining sentence.","causal_attribution":"The restriction is the effect of the condition; the AI document is one input to the decision that imposed it."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"\"The Parole Board's professional standards will be independently investigated following its use of unverified artificial intelligence in a rationale document which formed part of the materials before the board to impose conditions,\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Tasmania's Attorney-General announced an independent investigation of the Parole Board's professional standards following its use of unverified artificial intelligence in the rationale document.","causal_attribution":"The Attorney-General's statement acknowledges the AI use; it does not quantify its effect on the decision."},{"id":"c9","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"\"The Department will undertake a review to determine the extent to which Artificial Intelligence (AI) may have been used to inform past Tasmanian Parole Board decisions,\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"“The department will undertake a review to determine the extent to which artificial intelligence may have been used to inform past Tasmanian Parole Board decisions,” a justice department spokesperson said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"Tasmania's Justice Department said it would review the extent to which AI may have been used to inform past Parole Board decisions.","causal_attribution":"Not a causal claim."}],"effects":[{"label":"a restriction on public speech about claimed innocence from December 2024 until withdrawal in August 2026","claim_id":"c7","direction":"negative"},{"label":"adverse parole decision affected by a rationale document citing likely AI-generated, non-existent case law","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-15/susan-neill-fraser-media-ban-parole-board-ai-hallucinations/106302950","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from abc.net.au (HTTP 200). Court reporting of the 15 September 2026 hearing; the judgment and orders were not inspected. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"abc-au"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9350990/murderers-gag-order-lifted-after-troubling-ai-error/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from canberratimes.com.au (HTTP 200); Australian Associated Press copy of the same hearing, reported independently of the ABC. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"aap"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/susan-neill-fraser-gag-order-unlawful/","kind":"organisation_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from hrlc.org.au (HTTP 200). Release by the organisation that represented the parolee; its account of the State's concessions is a party-side account. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"hrlc"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-19/parole-board-ai-use-review-after-neill-fraser-case/107172064","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from abc.net.au (HTTP 200). Same outlet as s1, so the same independence group; carries the Attorney-General's and Justice Department's statements. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"abc-au"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/19/tasmania-justice-department-review-ai-artificial-intelligence-fake-citation-murderer-parole-decision-ntwnfb","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from theguardian.com (HTTP 200); credited to a staff reporter with Australian Associated Press, so grouped with s2. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"aap"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/26/sue-neill-fraser-yacht-murder-ai-court-case-media-ban-tasmania-ntwnfb","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from theguardian.com (HTTP 200); Guardian Australia feature by its own reporter. Retained complete body independently reinspected on 2026-10-06 for this proposal. No translation required.","independence_group":"guardian-au"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used and the extent of its contribution to the rationale. Counsel identified the secretary as its preparer, but the document and generation history were not inspected.","Whether the rationale document informed the December 2024 decision, the May 2025 decision or both.","The text of the judgment or orders, which could not be read (AustLII HTTP 403).","The findings of the independent investigation and of the Justice Department's review of past parole decisions."],"geography":{"basis":"The Parole Board of Tasmania imposed the condition and the Supreme Court of Tasmania in Hobart set it aside (ABC, AAP). The parolee's country of residence is not stated as such in the sources read.","court_countries":["AU"],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"This is a concrete restriction of a person's speech through a human parole-board decision. Court reporting and the representative's account describe likely AI-generated false authorities used as an input to that decision. The relation is informed_decision_about and does not require the AI text to mention the parolee. The AI origin remains qualified, and the document's precise role in each of the two successive conditions is unknown. The court's reported grounds concern procedural fairness, unreasonableness and uncertainty.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Human Rights Law Centre reports the State's concession that the board's decision-making was affected by a rationale document containing nonexistent authorities likely generated by AI. ABC and AAP court reports describe the document's use in imposing the media condition, and the Attorney-General's statement reported by ABC acknowledges unverified AI in material used by the board. These sources connect the AI-supplied legal material to a human decision restricting the parolee's speech. The relation is informed_decision_about. The sources do not establish that AI made claims about the parolee herself, wrote the whole rationale or made the final parole decision. The judgment and the rationale document have not been inspected.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Tasmania parole media ban quashed after state conceded reliance on likely AI-hallucinated case law","summary":"In December 2024 the Parole Board of Tasmania added a condition to the parole of Susan Neill-Fraser, released in 2022 after serving 13 years for murder and who maintains her innocence, barring her from communicating with media to claim innocence or wrongful conviction; a broader condition replaced it in May 2025. On 15 September 2026 the Supreme Court of Tasmania declared the conditions invalid. Her counsel told the court that the board's secretary had used artificial intelligence to prepare a rationale document justifying the condition and that it cited case law that did not exist. The Human Rights Law Centre, which represented her, says the State conceded that the board's decision-making was affected by a document containing legal authorities that were likely AI-generated hallucinations, and the ABC reports the court found the board relied on that document. The board had withdrawn the condition in August 2026. Tasmania's Attorney-General announced an independent investigation of the board's professional standards over its use of unverified AI, and the Justice Department announced a review of AI use in past parole decisions.","incidentDate":"2024-12-01","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-15","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-15","aiSystem":"An unidentified artificial-intelligence tool that, according to counsel and the Attorney-General, was used to prepare a Parole Board rationale document citing case law that did not exist","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","loss_of_autonomy"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The conditions restricted a parolee's public speech from December 2024 until their withdrawal in August 2026. They were declared invalid in September. The Human Rights Law Centre says the State conceded the board's decision-making had been affected by nonexistent legal authorities likely generated by AI. The judgment was not directly inspected, and the sources do not establish whether that document informed the original condition, the replacement or both.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One parolee is counted for the reported restriction of her speech. The reviewed sources describe no other identified person harmed by AI use in a parole decision; an announced review of past decisions does not establish additional victims.","victimAgeRange":"elderly","jurisdiction":"AU","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-15/susan-neill-fraser-media-ban-parole-board-ai-hallucinations/106302950","primarySourceLabel":"ABC News, 15 September 2026: AI hallucinations in parole board submission scuttle media ban on Susan Neill-Fraser","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:51.9027+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:51.9027+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["parole","hallucinated-case-law","freedom-of-speech","judicial-review","government-ai-use"]},{"id":"2025-nsw-resilient-homes-program-applicant-data-uploaded-to-chatgpt","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Some personal information provided by people during the RHP applications process was uploaded by a former temporary employee of the RA to the AI platform, ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The data shared was contained in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with 10 columns and more than 12,000 rows of information.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The upload took place between 12 and 15 March 2025.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This incident occurred when a former temporary employee uploaded information from a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to an unauthorised third-party AI platform, ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Between 12 and 15 March 2025, personal information was uploaded by a former contractor of the RA to the Artificial Intelligence platform ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"\"Personal information was uploaded by a former contractor of the RA to the artificial intelligence platform ChatGPT,\" an RA spokesperson said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"The authority said in a breach notice that the upload “was not authorised”.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Between 12 and 15 March 2025 a former temporary staff member (called a former contractor in the first notice) of the NSW Reconstruction Authority uploaded a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of Northern Rivers Resilient Homes Program information (10 columns, more than 12,000 rows) to ChatGPT; the Authority says the upload was not authorised and was not a cyber-attack.","causal_attribution":"The Authority's own notices report the upload, its dates and its unauthorised status; the ABC and iTnews relay those notices. The uploader's role is a former temporary staff member on the current page and a former contractor in the first notice and the press."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"2031 people who provided information to the RA for the RHP had some of their data uploaded to ChatGPT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Name and contact details","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Residential/mailing address","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Date of birth","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Sensitive personal information","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Sensitive health information","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Limited financial commentary, but not banking or financial details","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"no driver's licence numbers, Medicare numbers, passport numbers, or Tax File Numbers were disclosed in the breach.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Up to 3000 individuals may be impacted by the breach.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"The breach shared the names and addresses of program applicants, as well as email addresses, phone numbers, and other personal and health information.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Authority says external forensic analysis confirmed that 2031 people who provided information for the program had some of their data uploaded to ChatGPT, including name and contact details, residential or mailing address, date of birth, sensitive personal and health information and limited financial commentary, and that no driver licence, Medicare, passport or Tax File Numbers were disclosed; its first notice had estimated up to 3000 people.","causal_attribution":"The Authority's statements report the count and data categories from its forensic analysis; the ABC relays the first notice's categories."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"There is no evidence that any of the uploaded data is publicly available online or has been accessed by a third party at this stage.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We believe the risk of misuse is low","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"There is no evidence that any information has been made public, however this cannot be ruled out","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Authority says there is no evidence that the uploaded data is publicly available online or has been accessed by a third party; its first notice said this could not be ruled out, and it assesses the risk of misuse as low.","causal_attribution":"The Authority's own assessment. Whether OpenAI retained, deleted or used the uploaded data is not addressed in the inspected sources."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"we are deeply sorry for the distress it may cause for those involved in the program.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I feel concerned — the information with the RA was deeply personal,","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Authority apologised for the distress the breach may cause, and a program participant whose flooded home was bought back told the ABC the information held by the Authority was deeply personal and that they felt concerned.","causal_attribution":"The concern is one participant's stated reaction; the ABC does not say whether this person is among the 2031. No identity misuse or other realised loss is reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"We are working with Social Futures to reach out to people who have been impacted and ID Support NSW, a government identity and cyber security support service, to assist anyone whose data may have been compromised.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The NSW Reconstruction Authority will provide compensation for any reasonable out of pocket expenses if any compromised identity documents need to be replaced.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Authority contacted affected people with ID Support NSW and Social Futures to offer support, and said it would compensate reasonable out-of-pocket expenses if compromised identity documents needed replacing.","causal_attribution":"The Authority's statements about its response."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"We are working with Cyber Security NSW to monitor the internet and dark web to see if any of this information is accessible online. The NSW Privacy Commissioner has also been notified.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The RA has also implemented controls to block the upload of personal information into AI tools.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"An independent review into the data breach has now been completed, identifying several areas for improvement in RA’s governance, training and data security practices.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Authority notified the NSW Privacy Commissioner, had Cyber Security NSW monitor the internet and dark web, implemented controls to block the upload of personal information into AI tools, and completed an independent review that identified areas for improvement in its governance, training and data security practices.","causal_attribution":"The Authority's own account of its response; the review report itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The AI-related data breach was disclosed on what is a public holiday Monday in NSW, although it actually occurred over six months ago, between March 12 and 15.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"said she received a preliminary report about the breach in July, and the final report on Friday.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"\"I would prefer [for the RA] to advise people sooner, and I'm also informed they couldn't identify everybody, but I need to see the report first,\" she said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The breach was disclosed publicly on 6 October 2025, more than six months after the upload; the NSW Minister for Recovery told the ABC she had received a preliminary report about the breach in July and would have preferred people to be advised sooner.","causal_attribution":"iTnews's own observation of the disclosure timing and the Minister's statement to the ABC; the Authority attributes the delay to the time needed to identify affected people."}],"effects":[{"label":"personal and sensitive information of 2031 Resilient Homes Program participants was uploaded to ChatGPT without authorisation","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"a program participant reports concern about the deeply personal information held; the Authority apologised for possible distress","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nsw.gov.au/departments-and-agencies/nsw-reconstruction-authority/resilient-homes-program-data-breach","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; full body read by curl on 2026-10-11 (page last updated 26 March 2026, with the 9 December 2025 update and FAQ on the same page).","independence_group":"nsw-ra-statement"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-06/data-breach-northern-rivers-resilient-homes-program-chatgpt/105855284","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; full body read by curl on 2026-10-11. Relays the Authority statement; the participant and the Minister were interviewed separately within the same article.","independence_group":"nsw-ra-statement"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.itnews.com.au/news/nsw-gov-contractor-uploaded-excel-spreadsheet-of-flood-victims-data-to-chatgpt-620815","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; full body read by curl on 2026-10-11. Relays the Authority breach notice; the disclosure-timing observation is the outlet's own.","independence_group":"nsw-ra-statement"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.nsw.gov.au/departments-and-agencies/nsw-reconstruction-authority/media-releases/northern-rivers-resilient-homes-program-data-breach","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English original; full body read by curl on 2026-10-11. Authority departmental release of the first notice, 6 October 2025.","independence_group":"nsw-ra-statement"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["privacy","public_services"],"unknowns":["Why the staff member uploaded the spreadsheet and what, if anything, was asked of ChatGPT; no ChatGPT output is described.","Whether OpenAI retained, deleted or used the uploaded data for training; the sources establish the upload to the service only.","Whether any participant suffered identity misuse or other realised loss; none is reported.","Whether the uploader was a temporary staff member or a contractor (the Authority uses both terms), and how many separate uploads occurred between 12 and 15 March 2025.","The findings of the independent review beyond the Authority's summary of it."],"geography":{"basis":"The data was held by the NSW Reconstruction Authority, a New South Wales government agency, and was uploaded by a former temporary staff member of that agency; the Authority describes the incident as a breach of its program data. The ABC describes the affected people as northern NSW residents of the Northern Rivers region. No court is involved.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["AU"],"affected_person_countries":["AU"]},"publication":{"basis":"The Authority's notices, read in full on 2026-10-11, state that a staff member uploaded program participants' personal and sensitive information to ChatGPT without authorisation and that forensic analysis confirmed 2031 affected people. The disclosure of their information to a generative AI service without their knowledge is the recorded privacy harm. The upload rests on the Authority's own account, which the press relayed; no retention, training, public exposure or misuse is established. The uploader and affected people are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Authority states that a former temporary staff member uploaded a spreadsheet of program information to ChatGPT between 12 and 15 March 2025, that the upload was not authorised, and that forensic analysis confirmed 2031 people had some of their data uploaded. The reported transfer of their personal and sensitive information into the generative AI service is the AI connection to the privacy harm. This establishes the upload only. It does not establish retention by OpenAI, use for training, public exposure or a finding of illegality, and no ChatGPT output affecting participants is described.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["received_personal_information"]},"name":"NSW Reconstruction Authority says a former temporary staff member uploaded 2031 Resilient Homes participants' personal data to ChatGPT without authorisation","summary":"The NSW Reconstruction Authority says that between 12 and 15 March 2025 a former temporary staff member (called a former contractor in its first notice) uploaded a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of Northern Rivers Resilient Homes Program information, 10 columns and more than 12,000 rows, to ChatGPT, an AI platform the Authority had not authorised. The Authority disclosed the breach on 6 October 2025, estimating that up to 3000 people were affected, and later said external forensic analysis confirmed that 2031 people had some of their data uploaded, including names, contact details, addresses, dates of birth, sensitive personal and health information and limited financial commentary. It says no driver licence, Medicare, passport or Tax File Numbers were disclosed and that there is no evidence the data is publicly available or was accessed by a third party; whether OpenAI retained or used the data is not addressed. The Authority apologised, contacted affected people with ID Support NSW, offered to compensate the replacement of compromised identity documents and notified the NSW Privacy Commissioner. A program participant told the ABC the information was deeply personal and that they felt concerned. No misuse of the data is reported.","incidentDate":"2025-03-12","incidentEndDate":"2025-03-15","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-10-06","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used through an unauthorised upload of program data by a person working for the NSW Reconstruction Authority","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["other_material_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The NSW Reconstruction Authority reports that personal and sensitive information of 2031 Resilient Homes Program participants was uploaded to ChatGPT without authorisation, a loss of privacy for those people; it reports no evidence of public exposure or third-party access, and no misuse is reported (the Authority's notices and press coverage relaying them).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2031,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The Authority states that external forensic analysis confirmed 2031 people had some of their data uploaded to ChatGPT. The upload of their personal information to the AI service is itself the privacy harm recorded, so those 2031 people are counted as other people harmed. The first notice's estimate of up to 3000 is not used; the 12,000 rows are rows, not people. The participant quoted by the ABC is not separately counted because the ABC does not say whether that person is among the 2031. The uploader is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"AU-NSW","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nsw.gov.au/departments-and-agencies/nsw-reconstruction-authority/resilient-homes-program-data-breach","primarySourceLabel":"NSW Reconstruction Authority, updated 26 March 2026: Resilient Homes Program data breach","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T12:41:19.196147+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T03:10:38.11789+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025"]},{"id":"2025-stephens-county-oklahoma-judge-chatgpt-fake-citations-paternity-order","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Wheeler denied a request from one of the parents' attorneys to have the other parent undergo a psychological test—and in his order denying the request, he pointed to multiple previous Oklahoma cases he said backed him up.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The 2025 order in a child paternity case'; 'He came under scrutiny after he reprimanded attorney [the attorney] last November in an order in the paternity case for asking for a psychological evaluation of the child’s father.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The issue came to light after a request for a mental evaluation was denied and a subsequent court order was filed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In November 2025, in a child paternity and custody case, Judge Wheeler issued an order denying a request by one parent's attorney for a psychological evaluation of the other parent, citing Oklahoma cases he said supported the decision.","causal_attribution":"Court history as reported by The Oklahoman and KFOR and described by the mother; the order itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge told the OSBI he only used ChatGPT for research and created the order himself, DA Jason Hicks wrote. The judge, however, also “indicated that at least two of the case citations included in his order and produced by ChatGPT do not exist.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Stephens County District Attorney Jason Hicks says Wheeler admitted to OSBI agents he cited \"at least two\" cases ChatGPT fed him that \"do not exist.\"'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Hicks wrote that Wheeler acknowledged using case citations generated by ChatGPT and that at least two citations included in the order did not exist.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler used OpenAI's ChatGPT for research while drafting the order, which cited two cases that do not exist, according to state records.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"According to the district attorney's 17 August 2026 letter, the judge told the OSBI that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and indicated that at least two case citations in the order, produced by ChatGPT, do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The judge's own statement to investigators as relayed in the district attorney's letter; all four reports rely on that letter, which was not read. The judge's attorney declined to comment."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judge issued the reprimand “for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics” and cautioned that future similar filings may be subject to further sanctions.'; '[The attorney] challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February. He told justices that Wheeler based his order on two cases, Cummings v. Cimarron Elevator Co. and Hawkins v. Linhart, that do not exist.'; '[The attorney] dismissed his challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. Wheeler is no longer involved in the paternity case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'She said her attorney at the time challenged the ruling and began reviewing the legal authorities cited in the order.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The order reprimanded the attorney who had asked for a psychological evaluation of the child's father 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics' and warned of further sanctions; that attorney challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, saying it relied on two nonexistent cases, and dismissed the challenge in March after Wheeler vacated the order. The mother told News 9 that her attorney at the time challenged the ruling.","causal_attribution":"The Oklahoman's account of the court filings and the mother's account to News 9; the Supreme Court filings were not read."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'[The mother] said learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child.'; '“Then it became very concerning to me that somebody would do something like that over a child custody case,” she said.'; '“He then turned around and decided to recuse himself from my case,” she said. “He called my attorney that I had at the time and apologized to him.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The mother told News 9 that learning the citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because the order involved the custody of a child, and that the judge later recused himself from her case and apologised to her attorney.","causal_attribution":"The mother's first-person account in a broadcast interview."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints.'; 'The OSBI also looked into allegations “that Judge Wheeler offered to amend the order in exchange for a dismissal of a writ seeking relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court” and that he “eavesdropped on jury deliberations,” the DA disclosed in the letter.'; 'Prosecutors in the AG’s office “thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution,” the AG’s press secretary, Leslie Berger, said on Sept. 2.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The Criminal Justice Division of the Attorney General’s Office thoroughly reviewed the results of the investigation and determined the evidence does not support a criminal prosecution. The Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary possess ultimate jurisdiction over disciplinary actions for allegations of inappropriate behavior by judges regardless of whether the behavior constitutes a violation of a criminal statute.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The OSBI investigated the judge at the request of the Council on Judicial Complaints, including allegations that he offered to amend the order in exchange for dismissal of the writ and that he eavesdropped on jury deliberations; the attorney general's office said the evidence did not support criminal prosecution and that judicial discipline rests with the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Court on the Judiciary.","causal_attribution":"District attorney's letter and attorney general's statement as reported; no disciplinary finding has been made."}],"effects":[{"label":"the mother faced an order denying a psychological-evaluation request, with the judge citing authorities reported to have been generated by ChatGPT","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the attorney who requested the evaluation was reprimanded in the order and sought relief from the Oklahoma Supreme Court before the order was vacated","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the mother describes learning of the fabricated citations in her child custody case as alarming","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Oklahoman's report (USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect) as republished by Minnesota Lawyer; read in full from the Wayback capture of 10 September 2026 because the live page returned 403. Its ChatGPT-admission passages relay the district attorney's letter; its account of the reprimand, the Supreme Court challenge and the vacatur draws on court filings and the attorney. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.aol.com/articles/oklahoma-judge-admitted-citing-fake-030000000.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"KFOR (Oklahoma City) report syndicated on AOL, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its account of the ChatGPT admission relays the same district attorney letter. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.news9.com/oklahoma-city-news/stephens-county-mother-speaks-out-after-judge-accused-of-using-chatgpt-in-custody-case","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"News 9 (Griffin Media) interview with the mother, read in full on 2026-09-29. Its description of the ChatGPT admission also relays the district attorney's letter; the mother's own account is independent of it. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://hoodline.com/2026/09/stephens-county-judge-faces-discipline-over-chatgpt-written-court-order/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Hoodline rewrite of the Reuters report, read in full on 2026-09-29. Reuters relays the same district attorney letter. Reinspected in the retained complete English body on 2026-10-06. All sources share the district-attorney-letter chain for AI involvement, so grouped conservatively together; the News 9 maternal interview is separate testimony about her experience, not a second verification of AI use.","independence_group":"wheeler-da-letter"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["The text of the order and whether the nonexistent citations were decisive for denying the evaluation and for the reprimand.","Whether any disciplinary proceeding follows from the Council on Judicial Complaints referral.","The current state of the custody case after the vacatur and the judge's departure from it.","The exact day in November 2025 on which the order was issued."],"geography":{"basis":"The Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9 locate the order and proceedings in Stephens County, Oklahoma, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court. These establish the event and court countries as US. News 9 calls the interviewee a Stephens County mother but gives no explicit residence evidence for either counted person, so affected_person_countries is unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"This reported event connects specific ChatGPT-generated citations to an adverse order issued by a human judge. The Oklahoman and KFOR describe their use in the order, The Oklahoman reports the attorney's reprimand and successful challenge, and News 9 carries the mother's account. The AI admission is reported through one district attorney's letter, not independently verified model output. The family and attorney remain unnamed. No broader custody consequence or disciplinary finding is inferred.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Oklahoman, KFOR and News 9 relay a district attorney's letter saying the judge acknowledged using ChatGPT for research and incorporating at least two nonexistent citations it produced into his order. The cited authorities were presented in support of the human judge's denial of a requested evaluation and his reprimand of the attorney. This supports informed_decision_about for the affected mother and attorney. It does not establish that ChatGPT itself decided custody or communicated with either of them. The underlying letter and order were not inspected, and whether the citations determined the outcome is unknown.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Prosecutor: judge used ChatGPT citations in Oklahoma custody order later vacated","summary":"In November 2025 Stephens County Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler issued an order in a child paternity and custody case that denied one parent's request for a psychological evaluation of the other parent and reprimanded the requesting parent's attorney 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics'. The attorney challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, telling the justices that it relied on two cases that do not exist; the challenge was dismissed in March after Wheeler vacated the order, and he is no longer on the case. According to a 17 August 2026 letter from the Stephens County district attorney, Wheeler told the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and that at least two citations in it produced by ChatGPT do not exist. The mother in the case told News 9 that learning the order's citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because it concerned the custody of a child. The attorney general's office declined criminal prosecution; judicial discipline remains possible.","incidentDate":"2025-11-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-09","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI), used by the judge for legal research while preparing the order","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the district attorney's letter as reported by The Oklahoman and KFOR, a judge acknowledged that his custody-case order contained at least two nonexistent citations supplied by ChatGPT. The order denied a request for a psychological evaluation and reprimanded the requesting attorney. The attorney challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court before it was vacated. The mother described the discovery as alarming in a News 9 interview. The order and letter have not been inspected directly.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"Two people affected through the judge's use of ChatGPT: the mother, whose request for a psychological evaluation was denied by the order and who describes the discovery as alarming (News 9), and the attorney who requested the evaluation and was reprimanded in the order and challenged it at the Oklahoma Supreme Court (The Oklahoman). The child and the other parent are not counted because no harm to them is reported. The judge, the AI user, is not counted: he faces a possible disciplinary process but no sanction has been reported and the complaint bundled other allegations.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-OK","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://minnlawyer.com/2026/09/09/oklahoma-judge-ai-fabricated-case-citations/","primarySourceLabel":"The Oklahoman via Minnesota Lawyer, 9 September 2026: judge used ChatGPT citations in custody order","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:18.787549+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T04:48:44.069668+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["justice","family-court","judge","fabricated-citations","chatgpt","institutional-use","oklahoma"]},{"id":"2026-delhi-police-facial-recognition-jantar-mantar-list-25-in-jail","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'According to the police affidavit submitted on August 17, its FRS identified individuals with criminal records at the protest site'; 'It said that 2,402 people were identified by the Delhi Police'; 'and 471 through criminal records.'; 'No actions are taken solely based upon the result of the facial recognition system which is only the first step to identify a person in the crowd who has a criminal record.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'According to the Delhi Police affidavit, 2,402 people were identified through its biometric database, Crime Kundli, while another 471 were identified through criminal records.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The Delhi Police's affidavit of August 17, 2026 told the Supreme Court that 2,873 persons with criminal records had been spotted by the FRS at the protest site.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"In an affidavit of 17 August 2026 before the Supreme Court, Delhi Police said its Facial Recognition System had identified 2,873 people with criminal antecedents at the Jantar Mantar protest site between 20 and 26 July 2026, 2,402 through its 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and 471 through criminal records, and that no action is taken solely on an FRS result before field verification.","causal_attribution":"The affidavit as quoted by The Indian Express and relayed by Outlook and IFF; not inspected directly."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'An investigation of those with serious charges, murder, attempted murder and rape, and child abuse, shows that at least 25 people on the list, identified by the Facial Recognition System (FRS) at Jantar Mantar, were in jail as per police, jail and court records.'; 'In this group, 17 faced charges of murder; four of rape, including two in POCSO cases; and four more of attempt to murder were lodged in Delhi'; 'Court and jail records for all 25 show custody dates precede the protest'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'At least 25 of the 2,873 people identified by Delhi Police'; 'were already in jail when they were flagged, an investigation of police, prison and court records by The Indian Express has found.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Three were \"identified\" on July 24, twenty-one on July 25 and one on July 26, each with a timestamp.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"At least 25 of the 205 listed people facing murder, rape, POCSO or attempted-murder charges were in Tihar, Mandoli or Rohini jails when the FRS logged them at Jantar Mantar (17 murder, four rape of which the Express's narrative counts two and its itemised list three as POCSO cases, four attempted murder), with timestamps on 24, 25 and 26 July 2026 and custody dates that in some cases precede the protest by years.","causal_attribution":"The Indian Express's own check of police, prison and court records (one chain, relayed by Outlook and IFF); the Delhi Police response did not address the 25 cases."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On Tuesday, when the Supreme Court quashed all FIRs related to the exam leak protests by students, it let the government proceed against the 2,873 people who the Delhi Police claimed had criminal records'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Delhi Police was given permission to register one fresh FIR concerning 2,873 people alleged to have serious criminal antecedents and initially reported to have been present at Jantar Mantar.'; 'The Court did not find that the 2,873 were present, had qualifying criminal records or committed violence.'; 'the order prescribed no method or express requirement that checks precede arrest or other action'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'On September 1, 2026, a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, invoking Article 142, quashed all FIRs registered against students who participated in the July protests'; 'while directing that this should not prejudice their rights and that they must be given every opportunity to defend themselves'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 1 September 2026 the Supreme Court quashed the FIRs against the student protesters but permitted Delhi Police to register a fresh FIR concerning the 2,873 persons with alleged serious antecedents, directing that this should not prejudice their rights, and without a finding that they were present; the undertaking that action would follow field verification is the police's own, and The Federal notes the order prescribed no such requirement.","causal_attribution":"The order as described by the three outlets; not inspected directly."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Responding on Monday to a questionnaire from the Express, the Delhi Police said:'; 'During the protests, 2873 individuals identified as prima facie having criminal antecedents were spotted. However, further verification in this regard is pending.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In its response to the Express, the Delhi Police did not address the 25 cases'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Responding to The Indian Express, Delhi Police said the 2,873 individuals had been spotted as prima facie having criminal antecedents and that further verification was pending; the response did not address the 25 cases.","causal_attribution":"Police statement as quoted by the Express."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In response to a Right to Information (RTI) request in 2022, the police had revealed that it considered a match to be'; 'if its system showed an accuracy rate of 80 per cent.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'the Delhi Police disclosed that it treats any match with a similarity score above 80% as \"positive\"'; 'extracted in 2022 only after a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Delhi Police disclosed in 2022, in reply to Right to Information requests, that it treats a facial-recognition match with an 80 per cent similarity or accuracy score as positive.","causal_attribution":"Delhi Police's 2022 RTI replies as described by IFF, which obtained them, and by The Indian Express, which IFF says relies on the same disclosures; one chain. The reply itself was not inspected. IE describes the threshold as an accuracy rate of 80 per cent and IFF as a similarity score above 80 per cent."}],"effects":[{"label":"at least 25 people in judicial custody were logged by the police facial-recognition system as present at a protest and listed in a sworn affidavit of persons with criminal antecedents against whom a fresh FIR and field verification were permitted","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://indianexpress.com/article/express-exclusive/delhi-police-facial-recognition-jantar-mantar-protest-accused-in-jail-10862099/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read on 2026-09-24 from an Internet Archive capture of 15 September 2026 (web.archive.org/web/20260915075622id_/...); the live page returns 403 to this host. Express Investigation of 4 September 2026 with the list of the 25 and the police response.","independence_group":"indian-express-investigation"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.outlookindia.com/national/jantar-mantar-protest-25-people-flagged-by-facial-recognition-were-in-jail-records-show","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-24 (Outlook India, 4 September 2026): relays the Express findings and the affidavit figures; same chain.","independence_group":"indian-express-investigation"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://internetfreedom.in/delhi-polices-facial-recognition-flagged-25-jailed-people-at-jantar-mantar-this-dragnet-must-end/","kind":"other","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-24 (Internet Freedom Foundation, Apar Gupta, 4 September 2026): advocacy analysis that relays the Express findings (same chain for the 25) and adds IFF's own 2022 RTI replies on the 80 per cent threshold, its 24 July 2026 representation and RTI applications.","independence_group":"iff-own-rti"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://thefederal.com/the-federal-special/one-protest-two-probes-why-the-2873-person-fir-raises-questions-255688","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live on 2026-09-24 (The Federal, 4 September 2026): analysis of the Supreme Court order and the affidavit relying on the Express report; same chain.","independence_group":"indian-express-investigation"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","public_services","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether any of the 25 has been named in the fresh FIR, visited for field verification or otherwise acted against.","Whether the 25 (or the other 2,848 listed people) have been told they are on the list.","How many of the remaining 2,668 entries would fail the same check; the Express examined only the 205 most serious.","The vendor, algorithm and threshold actually applied at Jantar Mantar in July 2026.","The full text of the 17 August affidavit and the 1 September order (described as quoted).","Whether two or three of the four rape accused are POCSO cases: The Indian Express's narrative says two, its itemised list says three.","The protest window: The Indian Express and Outlook give 20 to 26 July; The Federal gives 20 to 25 July."],"geography":{"basis":"The protests and the facial-recognition deployment were at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi; the 25 were in Delhi's Tihar, Mandoli and Rohini prisons; the affidavit and order are in the Supreme Court of India (The Indian Express, IFF, The Federal).","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":["IN"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case in which an AI system made a consequential claim about identifiable people: a police facial-recognition system placed at least 25 people who were in prison at a protest, on a sworn list that the Supreme Court permitted police to act on. The finding rests on The Indian Express's records investigation (one chain, relayed by Outlook, IFF and The Federal) with the affidavit and order described as quoted; the 80 per cent threshold rests on IFF's 2022 RTI replies, which IFF says the Express also relies on. The listed people are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-24"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Delhi Police's own affidavit, as quoted by The Indian Express, attributes the 2,873 identifications to its Facial Recognition System matching faces against the 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and criminal records; the Express's records check shows the system logged at least 25 people who were in custody. The affidavit was not inspected directly.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"Delhi: the police facial-recognition system logged at least 25 people who were in Tihar, Mandoli or Rohini jails as present at the Jantar Mantar student protests (20 to 26 July 2026), with timestamps on 24 to 26 July, on a sworn list of 2,873 persons with 'criminal antecedents' that the Supreme Court allowed police to register a fresh FIR against (Indian Express investigation, 4 September 2026)","summary":"In an affidavit of 17 August 2026 before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi Police said its Facial Recognition System (FRS) had identified 2,873 people with criminal antecedents at the Jantar Mantar protests of 20 to 26 July 2026 (2,402 through its 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and 471 through other criminal records). On 1 September the Court quashed the FIRs against the student protesters but let the police proceed against the 2,873; the police say any action will follow field verification. The Indian Express checked the 205 listed people facing murder, attempted-murder, rape or child-sexual-offence charges against police, prison and court records and found that at least 25 of them (17 accused of murder, four of rape (two or three under POCSO; the Express's narrative and its list differ), four of attempted murder) were lodged in Delhi's Tihar, Mandoli or Rohini prisons when the system logged them at the protest site with timestamps on 24, 25 and 26 July; some had been in custody for years. Delhi Police told the newspaper that further verification of the 2,873 was pending and, in its affidavit, that no action is taken solely on a facial-recognition result and that field verification follows each match. The police disclosed in 2022, in reply to a Right to Information request, that it treats a match with an 80 per cent similarity score as positive. Whether any of the 25 has since been named in the fresh FIR or visited for verification is not reported.","incidentDate":"2026-07-24","incidentEndDate":"2026-07-26","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-04","aiSystem":"Delhi Police Facial Recognition System (FRS): face-matching software run on protest footage against the police 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and other criminal records; the vendor and algorithm are not identified in the inspected reporting","aiProduct":"Unidentified facial recognition system","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"At least 25 people in judicial custody were recorded by the police facial-recognition system as present at a protest they could not have attended and were placed, in a sworn affidavit before the Supreme Court, on a list of 2,873 persons with criminal antecedents against whom the Court permitted a fresh FIR and police field verification; The Indian Express reports the misidentifications and the Internet Freedom Foundation describes the exposure to verification visits and prosecution as the harm. No arrest, FIR entry or verification visit of any of the 25 is reported in the inspected sources.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":25,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"The Indian Express states 'at least 25 people on the list' were in jail when logged, and lists them (17 murder, four rape, four attempted murder). The other 2,668 entries were not checked, so the count is a documented minimum of 25.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://indianexpress.com/article/express-exclusive/delhi-police-facial-recognition-jantar-mantar-protest-accused-in-jail-10862099/","primarySourceLabel":"The Indian Express, 4 September 2026: Police say cameras 'caught' murder, rape accused at CJP protest - some were actually in jail (Express Investigation)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-24T03:46:45.247544+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:35.08761+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["facial-recognition","india","delhi","protest-surveillance","supreme-court","police","false-match","made-claim-about","jantar-mantar"]},{"id":"2026-brazil-openai-report-user-detained-without-charge","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Brazilian authorities arrested a man in June 2026 after OpenAI reported ChatGPT messages to the FBI and the alert was passed to police. Police described threats to harm a family member; the man disputed intent.","causal_attribution":"Police account carried by two independent chains (BBC interviews; G1 with civil-police material)."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): He was held in pre-trial detention for 54 days; on 13 August 2026 a court granted habeas corpus because, after more than 50 days, the police inquiry had not been concluded and no charge had been filed, and imposed an electronic ankle monitor and a ban on approaching or contacting his son and the child's mother; no charges had been brought and the investigation continues.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): He was held in pre-trial detention for 54 days; on 13 August 2026 a court granted habeas corpus because, after more than 50 days, the police inquiry had not been concluded and no charge had been filed, and imposed an electronic ankle monitor and a ban on approaching or contacting his son and the child's mother; no charges had been brought and the investigation continues.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"He was held in pre-trial detention for 54 days; on 13 August 2026 a court granted habeas corpus because, after more than 50 days, the police inquiry had not been concluded and no charge had been filed, and imposed an electronic ankle monitor and a ban on approaching or contacting his son and the child's mother; no charges had been brought and the investigation continues.","causal_attribution":"Court decision as reported by the BBC (single chain; the Spanish version is the same report)."},{"id":"c3","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Police say the reported messages were corroborated by material found during the arrest. The man denied intending harm and his lawyer disputed whether any concrete step had been taken.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Police say the reported messages were corroborated by material found during the arrest. The man denied intending harm and his lawyer disputed whether any concrete step had been taken.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Police say the reported messages were corroborated by material found during the arrest. The man denied intending harm and his lawyer disputed whether any concrete step had been taken.","causal_attribution":"Police and defence accounts as quoted by the BBC; the dispute concerns intent, not the detention."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): OpenAI provided investigators with the user's details and the messages he sent but not ChatGPT's replies; it did not answer the BBC's question why and said it may notify law enforcement when it detects a credible and imminent risk of harm to others; G1 reported that OpenAI's process combines automated systems and human moderators who may contact outside bodies, as happened in this case, and that the police chief called it the third such case in Brazil.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): OpenAI provided investigators with the user's details and the messages he sent but not ChatGPT's replies; it did not answer the BBC's question why and said it may notify law enforcement when it detects a credible and imminent risk of harm to others; G1 reported that OpenAI's process combines automated systems and human moderators who may contact outside bodies, as happened in this case, and that the police chief called it the third such case in Brazil.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): OpenAI provided investigators with the user's details and the messages he sent but not ChatGPT's replies; it did not answer the BBC's question why and said it may notify law enforcement when it detects a credible and imminent risk of harm to others; G1 reported that OpenAI's process combines automated systems and human moderators who may contact outside bodies, as happened in this case, and that the police chief called it the third such case in Brazil.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"OpenAI provided investigators with the user's details and the messages he sent but not ChatGPT's replies; it did not answer the BBC's question why and said it may notify law enforcement when it detects a credible and imminent risk of harm to others; G1 reported that OpenAI's process combines automated systems and human moderators who may contact outside bodies, as happened in this case, and that the police chief called it the third such case in Brazil.","causal_attribution":"OpenAI statements and investigators' accounts as reported; the absence of the replies is stated by investigators to the BBC."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Police say the conversations ran for about two months and an alert reached Brazilian authorities in June 2026, three days before the arrest.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Passage concerning this claim (paraphrased; identifying and method details omitted): Police say the conversations ran for about two months and an alert reached Brazilian authorities in June 2026, three days before the arrest.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Police say the conversations ran for about two months and an alert reached Brazilian authorities in June 2026, three days before the arrest.","causal_attribution":"BBC account (single chain)."}],"effects":[{"label":"held 54 days in pre-trial detention without charge after OpenAI reported his messages; released under electronic monitoring and a ban on contacting his son and the child's mother","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"police say the report let them arrest him a day before the date on which they believed the plan against the child would be carried out","claim_id":"c1","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c8dn1l7vr6ro","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt-br","translation_note":"Read live in Portuguese on 2026-09-23 (BBC News Brasil, Iara Diniz, 14 August 2026): messages seen by the BBC, police chief and defence-lawyer interviews, the habeas corpus release and precautionary measures. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"bbc"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/cxnvlg14e1p8o","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Read live in Spanish on 2026-09-23 (BBC News Mundo, 16 September 2026): Spanish text produced by AI translation from an English-language BBC original and reviewed by a BBC journalist before publication (stated in the article); same reporting chain as s1, which is preferred where the two diverge. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"bbc"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://g1.globo.com/tecnologia/noticia/2026/06/27/como-chatgpt-identificou-plano-de-pai-para-matar-o-filho-e-levou-alerta-para-autoridades.ghtml","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt-BR","translation_note":"Read live in Portuguese on 2026-09-23 (G1, 27 June 2026): arrest on 19 June, the OpenAI to FBI to Ministry of Justice to state police chain, message images from the civil police, OpenAI statement, police chief to TV Gazeta. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"g1-globo"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/459083/pai-e-preso-apos-planejar-morte-do-filho-no-chatgpt-veja-analise","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"pt","translation_note":"Read live in Portuguese on 2026-09-23 (Migalhas, 26 June 2026): summary attributed to an earlier G1/TV Gazeta report of 26 June, with lawyers' analysis; same Globo chain as s3. Translated by the reviewer.","independence_group":"g1-globo"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships","privacy"],"unknowns":["What ChatGPT replied during the two months of conversations (OpenAI did not provide the replies).","Whether charges will be brought after the forensic results and phone examination.","Whether he in fact contacted a hired killer, as he told ChatGPT.","The exact date OpenAI made its report to the FBI.","His identity (withheld by the BBC; not sought here)."],"geography":{"basis":"Arrest at his home in rural [identifying or operational detail withheld], [identifying or operational detail withheld] (BBC, G1, Migalhas); he lives there; habeas corpus granted by the Brazilian court handling the pre-trial detention (BBC: a Justiça). OpenAI's report went via the FBI in the United States, which is not an event location.","court_countries":["BR"],"event_countries":["BR"],"affected_person_countries":["BR"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a contextual case: an AI operator's report about a user, generated by ChatGPT safety systems, led to 54 days of pre-trial detention without charge, ended by habeas corpus. Two independent reporting chains (BBC; Globo) support the arrest and its cause; the release and its terms rest on the BBC. The police account that the report prevented a planned killing is preserved as context and intent is recorded as disputed. Nobody is named; the child is not identified. The charter states that this class needs no separate ruling.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"He conversed with ChatGPT for about two months; OpenAI's safety systems flagged the conversations and the company reported them to the FBI, which passed them to Brazilian authorities (BBC, G1, with the police chief's account). OpenAI did not provide ChatGPT's replies, so what the chatbot said is unknown.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","made_claim_about"]},"name":"Brazilian man detained without charge after OpenAI reported messages; he denies intending harm","summary":"BBC reporting describes a Brazilian man detained for 54 days after OpenAI reported messages to the FBI and Brazilian authorities. Police described a credible threat; he denied intending harm. A court released him without charges under protective conditions. The report did not include ChatGPT’s replies.","incidentDate":"2026-06-19","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-13","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-06-26","aiSystem":"ChatGPT (OpenAI); OpenAI's automated detection and human moderation systems, which generated the report","aiProduct":"ChatGPT and OpenAI moderation","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["loss_of_liberty","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The user was held in pre-trial detention for 54 days without charge on the strength of his ChatGPT messages as reported by OpenAI, then released under electronic monitoring and a no-contact order covering his son and the child's mother while the investigation continues. Police say the report was corroborated at the scene and prevented a planned killing; he and his lawyer dispute any intent. The consequence to him is undisputed; whether it was warranted is contested.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the ChatGPT user who was detained (BBC, G1). The child and the child's mother are not counted as harmed. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"BR","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"investigation_opened","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c8dn1l7vr6ro","primarySourceLabel":"BBC News Brasil — report on the case","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-23T03:45:57.312143+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T11:09:49.574842+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["chatgpt","openai","brazil","espirito-santo","law-enforcement-report","pre-trial-detention","fbi","institutional-response","communicated-with","made-claim-about"]}]}