{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-16T07:32:18.905Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"writing","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"unknown","evidence":"","year":"","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":2,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":2},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-maastricht-university-ai-fraud-sanction-over-nonexistent-sources-upheld-by-dutch-council-of-state","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Bij beslissing van 11 december 2025 heeft de examencommissie zich op het standpunt gesteld dat'; 'ongeoorloofd gebruik gemaakt van kunstmatige intelligentie (hierna: AI)'; 'houdt in dat er een formele waarschuwing wordt opgenomen in haar studentendossier, dat alle toetsonderdelen van het vak ongeldig worden verklaard'; 'niet mag deelnemen aan de herkansing van het vak'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 11 December 2025 the examination board found that the student had committed fraud in a weekly assignment and had made unauthorised use of AI, and imposed a formal warning in her student file, invalidation of all assessment components of the course and exclusion from the resit.","causal_attribution":"Recorded in the Council of State's ruling."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'de verdenking van fraude ziet op het gebruik van AI in drie van de vier bronnen bij de opdracht'; 'weergegeven bronnen bestaan niet en de manier waarop deze zijn opgenomen in de opdracht duidt op het gebruik van AI'; 'Er is geen technische analyse verricht, er is geen AI-detectietool ingezet'; 'omdat het onderzoek naar de vermeende fraude niet met behulp van technische middelen is verricht'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The examination board based the finding on three of four cited sources that named a different journal or edition, year, incomplete title or page numbers from existing articles; it said the sources did not exist and that the way they were included pointed to the use of AI. The Council of State's ruling records that the investigation was not carried out with technical means; the student argued that no technical analysis or AI-detection tool was used.","causal_attribution":"The board's reasoning and the absence of a detection tool are recorded in the ruling; the AI use itself is the board's inference."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Verder is nooit aan haar gevraagd of zij gebruik heeft gemaakt van AI.'; 'heeft de opdracht afgerond in tijdnood en haar internetverbinding was op dat moment slecht.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student argued that she was never asked whether she had used AI and that she completed the assignment under time pressure with a poor internet connection, relying on memory and notes.","causal_attribution":"The ruling documents that the student made these arguments, not their truth."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'De examencommissie heeft met hoge waarschijnlijkheid aangetoond dat het ingediende werk door kunstmatige intelligentie is gegenereerd.'; 'Bij beslissing van 5 maart 2026 heeft het CBE het door'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 5 March 2026 the university's examination appeals board rejected her appeal, holding that the examination board had shown with high probability that the work was AI-generated.","causal_attribution":"Recorded in the ruling."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Datum uitspraak: 12 augustus 2026'; 'verklaart het beroep ongegrond;'; 'wijst het verzoek om schadevergoeding af.'; 'Door de beschuldiging en de aantekening leidt zij reputatieschade en psychische schade.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 12 August 2026 the Council of State dismissed her appeal and her claim for damages, in which she said the accusation and the note in her file caused her reputational and psychological harm.","causal_attribution":"The dismissal is documented; the reputational and psychological harm is the student's claim as recorded in the ruling."}],"effects":[{"label":"formal fraud warning, invalidation of all course assessments and exclusion from the resit","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"appeal and damages claim dismissed by the Council of State","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in full in Dutch and translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translation.","independence_group":"raad-van-state-ecli-nl-rvs-2026-4720"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["education","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether the student used an AI tool, and which one.","When the assignment was submitted; the ruling dates only the examination board's decision."],"geography":{"basis":"The assignment, sanction and appeals concern Maastricht University and the Council of State in the Netherlands, as the ruling states. The student's own country is not stated; the use of an interpreter at the hearing does not establish it.","court_countries":["NL"],"event_countries":["NL"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as an institution's consequential response to suspected AI use: Maastricht University sanctioned a student for fraud after attributing non-existent sources to AI without a detection tool, and the Dutch Council of State upheld the sanction and rejected her damages claim. The facts rest on the published ruling.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the university's sanction for suspected AI use: its examination board concluded from non-existent and garbled citations in three of four sources that the student had made unauthorised use of AI and imposed a formal warning, invalidated the course's assessments and excluded her from the resit, and the Council of State upheld that decision on 12 August 2026. No detection tool or technical analysis was used and the student offered a different explanation, so AI use is recorded as suspected and the relation as unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Dutch Council of State upholds Maastricht University fraud sanction on a law student whose assignment cited non-existent sources the university attributed to AI","summary":"On 11 December 2025 an examination board at Maastricht University found that a European Law School student had committed fraud in a weekly assignment whose purpose was to find and correctly cite legal sources. The board said three of the four sources contained wrong journals, years, titles and page numbers, that the sources did not exist, and that the way they were included pointed to the use of AI; it concluded the student had made unauthorised use of AI. The sanction was a formal warning in the student's file, invalidation of all assessment components of the course and exclusion from the resit. The student argued that no technical analysis or AI-detection tool had been used, that she was never asked whether she had used AI, and that the errors came from completing the work in a hurry from memory and notes with a poor internet connection. The university's examination appeals board rejected her appeal on 5 March 2026, and on 12 August 2026 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State dismissed her further appeal and her claim for damages for reputational and psychological harm.","incidentDate":"2025-12-11","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-08-12","aiSystem":"No AI tool is named. The examination board inferred from non-existent and garbled source citations that the assignment had been generated with AI; no detection tool or technical analysis was used","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The student received a formal fraud warning in her file, had all assessment components of the course invalidated and was excluded from the resit after the university attributed non-existent sources to AI; the Council of State upheld the sanction and rejected her claim of reputational and psychological harm (ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One sanctioned student (ruling). She is counted under other people harmed because her use of AI is the university's inference and is not established.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"NL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720","primarySourceLabel":"Council of State (Netherlands), ruling ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720, case 202601147/1/A2, 12 August 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:11:28.361182+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:11:28.361182+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-use-accusation","academic-integrity","education","fabricated-sources","sanction-upheld","ai-involvement-suspected"]},{"id":"2026-new-jersey-remote-worker-dismissed-after-seeking-exemption-from-ai-webcam-monitoring","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'her former employer, Sutherland Healthcare Solutions in Clifton, let her go in early September for being unwilling to submit to the AI software monitoring, known as Sentinel AI'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The employee alleges that Sutherland Healthcare Solutions, based in Clifton, New Jersey, ended her employment in early September 2026 for being unwilling to submit to AI monitoring software known as Sentinel AI.","causal_attribution":"The employee's allegation in her lawsuit, as reported. The employer did not respond."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'it would start using AI to take still images of her via the webcam on her work laptop'; 'would use AI and facial recognition software to make sure'; 'taking 160 images during an eight-hour work shift, or one image every three minutes, the suit says'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the suit, the employer said it would use AI to take still images of the employee through her work laptop's webcam, using facial recognition to confirm she was the person at the desk, at 160 images in an eight-hour shift.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's description of the employer's planned monitoring, as reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'notified her employer in writing that she was worried about the AI seeing the inside of her home, and whether the data would be securely stored, the complaint says'; 'the proposed monitoring had significantly increased\" her anxiety and stress'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The employee raised concerns in writing about the AI seeing inside her home and about whether the data would be securely stored, and told the employer the proposed monitoring had significantly increased her anxiety and stress.","causal_attribution":"The employee's account in the complaint, as reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'asked for an accommodation to be exempt from the monitoring while working from home, the lawsuit says, but was denied'; 'On Aug. 13, 2026,'; 'was given a 24-hour ultimatum to submit to the AI surveillance or resign'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Her request for an accommodation exempting her from the monitoring while working from home was denied, and on 13 August 2026 she was given a 24-hour ultimatum to submit to the AI surveillance or resign.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's account, as reported."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Management offered to let her avoid the software if she commuted to the office'; 'it would require six hours of travel time'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Management offered to let her avoid the software by commuting to the office, which she rejected because it would require six hours of travel.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's account, as reported."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'employment was terminated on Sept. 8, 2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Her employment was terminated on 8 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's account, as reported. The employer has not given its reasons publicly."},{"id":"c7","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'lawsuit filed on Sept. 23 in state Superior Court in Atlantic City'; 'violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws and retaliated against her for requesting “reasonable accommodations”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A lawsuit filed on 23 September 2026 in New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic City alleges that the employer violated the state's anti-discrimination laws and retaliated against her for requesting reasonable accommodations.","causal_attribution":"The outlet's report of the filing. The filing was not inspected."},{"id":"c8","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sutherland did not respond to multiple emails seeking comment for this story'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Sutherland did not respond to the outlet's requests for comment.","causal_attribution":"The outlet's statement."}],"effects":[{"label":"employment terminated after refusing AI facial-recognition webcam monitoring and being denied an accommodation (alleged)","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"},{"label":"increased anxiety and stress attributed to the monitoring requirement (employee's account)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/business/2026/10/05/clifton-nj-bill-ai-monitor-employees-lawsuit/92056487007/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full. The www host refused the fetcher, so the identical article was read on the eu.northjersey.com mirror of the same URL path. The complaint itself was not inspected.","independence_group":"northjersey-record"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["work","privacy","accessibility"],"unknowns":["Whether the monitoring software was ever run on this employee and what it recorded.","The employer's account of the monitoring policy and of the reasons for the dismissal.","The vendor of the Sentinel AI software and how its facial-recognition check works.","The court's response to the lawsuit.","The dates on which the employer announced the monitoring and on which the accommodation request was made and denied."],"geography":{"basis":"The employer is in Clifton, New Jersey, and the report says the employee worked remotely for it from a home in New Jersey, so the dismissal and the home-working arrangement at issue were in the US. The lawsuit was filed in New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic City.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete account of a person's dismissal after objecting to an employer's AI facial-recognition monitoring, reported by a regional newspaper from a filed lawsuit and the employee's attorneys. The account is attributed as allegation throughout, and the employee is not named in this record.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the employer's response to the employee's objection to AI monitoring: according to the complaint as reported, the employer required webcam monitoring that would use AI and facial recognition to confirm her identity at the desk, denied her accommodation request and terminated her employment after she refused it. The report does not say the software ever captured or assessed images of this employee, so no output of the AI system about her is established and the relation is recorded as unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Lawsuit says a New Jersey employer dismissed a remote worker who sought exemption from AI facial-recognition webcam monitoring","summary":"NorthJersey.com reported on 5 October 2026 that a former remote employee of Sutherland Healthcare Solutions, based in Clifton, New Jersey, sued the company in New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic City on 23 September 2026. According to the complaint as reported, the employer told the employee it would start monitoring her through her work laptop's webcam with software called Sentinel AI, which would use AI and facial recognition to confirm that she was the person at the desk, taking 160 still images in an eight-hour shift. The employee raised concerns in writing about the AI seeing inside her home and about whether the data would be securely stored, said the monitoring had increased her anxiety and stress and worsened a medical condition, and asked for a full or partial exemption as a reasonable accommodation. The suit says the request was denied, she was given a 24-hour ultimatum on 13 August 2026 to submit to the monitoring or resign, an offer to avoid the software by commuting to the office was rejected because it would require six hours of travel time, and her employment was terminated on 8 September 2026. The suit alleges that the employer violated New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws and retaliated against her for requesting reasonable accommodations. Sutherland did not respond to the outlet's requests for comment, and the allegations have not been tested in court.","incidentDate":"2026-08-13","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-08","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-05","aiSystem":"Workplace webcam-monitoring software reported as Sentinel AI in NorthJersey.com's account of the employee's lawsuit, which the complaint, as reported, says would use AI and facial recognition to take still images of a remote worker and confirm that she was the person at the desk","aiProduct":"Sentinel AI (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The employee lost a long-held job after refusing an employer's AI facial-recognition webcam monitoring and being denied an accommodation, and says the monitoring requirement increased anxiety and stress and worsened a medical condition (allegations in a lawsuit reported by NorthJersey.com; the employer did not comment).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the employee whose employment was terminated. Counted under other people harmed because the AI system was the employer's monitoring tool, not one the employee chose to use.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-NJ","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/business/2026/10/05/clifton-nj-bill-ai-monitor-employees-lawsuit/92056487007/","primarySourceLabel":"NorthJersey.com (The Record), 5 October 2026: \"NJ employer wanted to use AI to monitor at-home employee, suit says\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-06T03:13:23.649886+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T03:13:23.649886+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["workplace-monitoring","facial-recognition","dismissal","workplace-accommodation","employment-lawsuit","new-jersey","consequential-response"]}]}