{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-22T10:15:55.423Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"whistleblowing","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"unknown","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":0,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-employment-tribunal-refuses-interim-relief-to-manager-dismissed-after-raising-concerns-about-customer-data-sent-to-openai","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent on 5 January 2026. He was dismissed on 11 March 2026.'; 'which was used to deal with customer service requests by submitting electronic forms completed by the customer to a large language model system which would respond to the requests using Artificial Intelligence.'; 'The Claimant was engaged in a senior role – Head of Customer Service Platform – Business to Business.'; 'On 11 March 2026 the Claimant’s employment was terminated with immediate effect, two months into his employment and during his probation period.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the tribunal's summary, the claimant began work at the company on 5 January 2026 as Head of Customer Service Platform (Business to Business), leading the conversion of a customer-service system that passed customer request forms to a large language model into a product for other businesses, and was dismissed on 11 March 2026, during his probation period.","causal_attribution":"Background recited by the judge from the parties' material, with no findings of fact made; the dismissal date is not disputed in the decision; reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'with his concerns on 10 February 2026.'; 'there seems to be a pretty fundamental issue with the fact that we send PII to open AI within the support tickets'; 'the Claimant became concerned about the way in which personal data provided by customers on their customer service request forms was handled.'; 'Following this, the Claimant produced a lengthy document setting out his concerns and his proposals for resolution.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the transcript quoted in the decision, on 10 February 2026 the claimant told his manager that there was a fundamental issue with the company sending customers' personal data to OpenAI within support tickets and that chat logs might need to be stored in particular countries; he later set out his concerns in a document that also went to the chief technical officer.","causal_attribution":"The claimant's words as transcribed and the judge's summary of the documents; the respondent says compliance measures were already in place; reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'received that document on around 20 February 2026 and was not impressed with what he saw.'; 'This is pure AI slop. I’d fire him from Sporty as a whole.'; 'He expressed concerns that the Claimant’s updates come across as AI-generated, heavy on buzzwords but “shallow/vapid, demonstrating a lack of deeper thinking on the subject”.'; 'I also think you’re significantly over-focused on legal, compliance, and bureaucracy rather than getting customers onboard'; 'he was to be moved to try a role within the business’s casino sector'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to a chat transcript quoted in the decision, on about 20 February 2026 the chief technical officer called the document pure AI slop and said he would fire the claimant from the company; he later told the claimant that his updates came across as AI-generated and that he was over-focused on legal and compliance matters; the claimant was then moved to a role in the casino sector before being dismissed.","causal_attribution":"Messages quoted from documents placed before the tribunal; the judge notes the key paragraph was taken somewhat out of context; reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"disputed","evidence":[{"locator":"'The Respondent’s position is that the reason for dismissal is that the Claimant had “consistently underperformed”, in particular citing his reliance on AI to generate documents, resulting in poor written communication, his lack of sector specific knowledge, and his inability to adapt to a start-up environment.'; 'The Respondent denies that the alleged protected disclosures were in fact protected disclosures, or that this was the reason for dismissal.'; 'The Claimant counters that no issue had been raised about his performance prior to him sending the document'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The employer says it dismissed the claimant because he consistently underperformed, citing his reliance on AI to generate documents, poor written communication, lack of sector knowledge and inability to adapt to a start-up; the claimant says the reason was his disclosures about personal-data handling, and says no performance issue had been raised before he sent his document.","causal_attribution":"The parties' opposing positions on the reason for dismissal, as recorded by the judge; unresolved until a final hearing; disputed."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Accordingly I dismiss the Claimant’s application and make no order for interim relief.'; 'There appears to be a significant coincidence in timing, in that the dismissal came swiftly after the Claimant’s concerns were escalated'; 'I consider that there does appear to be some cogent evidence, at this preliminary stage and for today’s purposes, capable of supporting the purported reasons for the dismissal advanced by the Respondent.'; 'I should note that I have not made any findings of fact'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 23 April 2026 the employment judge dismissed the claimant's application for interim relief and made no order for reinstatement, re-engagement or continuation of his contract, finding he had not shown a pretty good chance of establishing that his disclosures were the reason for dismissal, while noting a significant coincidence in timing and some cogent evidence capable of supporting the employer's reasons; the judge made no findings of fact.","causal_attribution":"The ruling and the judge's stated assessment are directly established by the judgment itself; documented."}],"effects":[{"label":"dismissal during probation after raising concerns about customer data sent to OpenAI (reason disputed)","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a170d24b95db968c8f3bb4e/Mr_Nicholas_Riley_v_Apertum_Online_Ltd_-_6009171_2026_-_Judgment_.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English on 2026-10-22 (PDF, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext). Judgment on an application for interim relief, Employment Tribunal case 6009171/2026, heard at the East London Hearing Centre on 23 April 2026 and dated the same day; published on GOV.UK on 28 May 2026. The judge states that no findings of fact were made.","independence_group":"employment-tribunal-6009171-2026-interim-relief"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use","unknown"],"contexts":["work","justice","privacy"],"unknowns":["Whether the final hearing has taken place and what it decided about the reason for dismissal.","Whether the claimant used AI to write the documents the employer criticised.","Whether customers' personal data was in fact sent to OpenAI without adequate safeguards; the employer says compliance measures were in place.","Where the claimant worked and the financial consequences of the dismissal."],"geography":{"basis":"The claim was heard by an employment tribunal at the East London Hearing Centre under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The decision describes the employer as a global consumer internet and media company and does not say where the claimant worked, so the event country is left unknown.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a consequential response to AI: an employment tribunal decision records that a manager was dismissed during probation after raising concerns that customers' personal data was sent to OpenAI, that the employer cites his reliance on AI to generate documents, and that interim relief was refused; the reason for dismissal is disputed and no findings of fact were made.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-22"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The tribunal decision records that the employer's customer-service system passed customer request forms to a large language model, that the claimant raised concerns about customers' personal data being sent to OpenAI within support tickets, and that the employer's stated reasons for dismissing him include his reliance on AI to generate documents. The dismissal is a response to AI in both parties' accounts. No output of an AI system toward the claimant is described, and whether he used AI to write his documents is the employer's assertion.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Employment tribunal refuses interim relief to manager who says he was fired for raising concerns about customer data sent to OpenAI; employer cites his AI use","summary":"A Head of Customer Service Platform at Apertum Online Ltd, a consumer internet company whose customer-service system passed customer request forms to a large language model, was dismissed on 11 March 2026 during his probation, two months after starting. According to an employment tribunal decision of 23 April 2026, he had told his manager in February that customers' personal data was being sent to OpenAI within support tickets and set out his concerns in a document; the chief technical officer called the document pure AI slop in a chat and said he would fire him. The employer says it dismissed him for underperformance, citing his reliance on AI to generate documents; he says he was dismissed for his disclosures. The judge refused interim relief, finding he had not shown a pretty good chance of success on the reason for dismissal while noting a significant coincidence in timing. No findings of fact were made, and the claim awaits a final hearing.","incidentDate":"2026-03-11","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-05-28","aiSystem":"A large language model customer-service system to which the employer's platform passed customer request forms; the claimant said customers' personal data went to OpenAI. The employer also cites the claimant's use of unnamed AI tools to generate documents","aiProduct":"Unidentified OpenAI model (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The claimant was dismissed during probation, and his application for interim reinstatement was refused; he says the dismissal was for his concerns about customer data sent to OpenAI, and the employer cites his reliance on AI to generate documents.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the claimant, whose dismissal on 11 March 2026 and refused interim-relief application are recorded in the decision. Customers whose data was sent to the language model are not counted; no harm to them is reported.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a170d24b95db968c8f3bb4e/Mr_Nicholas_Riley_v_Apertum_Online_Ltd_-_6009171_2026_-_Judgment_.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Employment Tribunal, case 6009171/2026, judgment on application for interim relief, 23 April 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-22T03:14:49.149228+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-22T03:14:49.149228+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["employment","dismissal","employment-tribunal","interim-relief","whistleblowing","customer-data","consequential-response"]}]}