{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-16T07:29:46.467Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"writing","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"unknown","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"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":"2025-st-andrews-medical-student-dissertation-ai-misconduct-finding-upheld-then-overturned","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'to receive an academic misconduct alert saying the dissertation he had spent his summer writing had been flagged as being AI-generated'; 'was assessed by two human markers'; 'One of them raised concerns over the potential use of AI.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student received an academic misconduct alert saying his dissertation had been flagged as AI-generated, after one of two human markers raised concerns about potential AI use.","causal_attribution":"The BBC's report of the student's account and of the university's description of the marking."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The marker's notes - seen by the BBC - raise concerns about the \"polished/uniform tone\" of the work'; 'noting the \"consistent flawless grammar and similar sentence structure with no variation in style\"'; 'a \"formulaic paragraph structure that follows a typical AI pattern'; 'a high usage of \"em\" dashes'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The marker's notes cite the work's polished, uniform tone, consistent grammar, formulaic paragraph structure and frequent dashes as grounds for concern.","causal_attribution":"The BBC's description of notes it says it saw."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'he received the link five minutes after the start time for the hearing'; 'A week later, he received the decision that the allegations of AI usage had been upheld.'; 'This meant his mark would be capped at seven, just enough to pass'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"After a virtual hearing whose link the student says arrived five minutes late, the allegations of AI use were upheld and his mark was capped at seven, just enough to pass.","causal_attribution":"The student's account as reported by the BBC."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The university accepted the appeal, recognising that the late arrival of the link affected his ability to present his case. He was invited to attend another hearing in mid-November.'; 'This time the university decided not to uphold the allegations.'; 'He eventually got his full mark for his dissertation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The university accepted the appeal because of the late link, and at a second hearing in mid-November it did not uphold the allegations; the student later received his full mark.","causal_attribution":"The BBC's report; the university's statement confirms that the appeal was upheld."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'he was consumed by worries throughout the whole of that semester and it affected his studies.'; 'had to defer his exams for a semester and sit them in the middle of the summer. As a result, his graduation has been delayed until December.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student says he was consumed by worries throughout that semester and that it affected his studies, that he deferred his exams for a semester and that his graduation was delayed until December.","causal_attribution":"The student's account of the consequences."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the decision to uphold the student's appeal related solely to a procedural issue concerning the arrangements for the hearing'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The university says the appeal was upheld solely because of a procedural issue concerning the hearing arrangements.","causal_attribution":"The university's statement to the BBC."}],"effects":[{"label":"misconduct finding of AI use upheld at first, capping the dissertation mark at a bare pass","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"semester of worry, deferred exams and delayed graduation (student account)","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"},{"label":"allegations not upheld at the second hearing; full mark awarded","claim_id":"c4","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crelev8gw5xo","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English: the article text in full as served on 12 October 2026. An earlier syndicated copy on MSN said the decision would be reflected on his GMC professional record; the current BBC text says the matter may have to be declared when applying for provisional registration. This record uses the current BBC wording.","independence_group":"bbc"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["education"],"unknowns":["The panels' written decisions and the evidence each panel considered.","Whether any AI-detection tool was used at any stage; the report describes none.","The exact dates of the alert and the hearings beyond August and mid-November of the previous year.","The university's account of the case beyond its statement on the appeal."],"geography":{"basis":"The dissertation, the hearings and the appeal were at the University of St Andrews. The student's country of residence is not recorded.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete account of a student penalised on a finding of AI use that the university later did not uphold, reported by the BBC from the student's interview, the marker's notes and a university statement. No AI system's role in the finding is established, and the record says so. The student is not named in this record.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the university's response to suspected AI use: a human marker raised concerns that the dissertation was AI-generated, citing its tone, grammar, paragraph structure and dashes, and a panel first upheld the allegation. The student says he did not use AI, and a second hearing did not uphold it. The report describes no AI-detection tool and no AI output about the student, so the relation is recorded as unknown.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"St Andrews medical student says a marker's suspicion of AI use led to an upheld misconduct finding, overturned at a second hearing after appeal","summary":"The BBC reported on 10 August 2026 that a University of St Andrews medical student received an academic misconduct alert in August of the previous year saying his dissertation had been flagged as AI-generated. According to the university, the dissertation was assessed by two human markers, one of whom raised concerns about possible AI use; the marker's notes, seen by the BBC, cite a polished, uniform tone, flawless grammar, formulaic paragraph structure and frequent dashes. The student says the link to his virtual hearing arrived five minutes after the start time. A week after the hearing the allegations were upheld, which capped his mark at a bare pass. The university accepted his appeal because of the late link, and at a second hearing in mid-November it did not uphold the allegations. He later received his full mark. The student says he was consumed by worries throughout that semester, that he deferred his exams and that his graduation was delayed until December. The university says the appeal succeeded solely on a procedural issue. The report describes no AI-detection tool, and the student says he did not use AI.","incidentDate":"2025-08-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-08-10","aiSystem":"No AI system is identified. A human marker suspected that the student's dissertation was AI-generated; the student says he did not use AI, and the report describes no AI-detection tool","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A student says a misconduct finding of AI use, first upheld and later overturned, capped his dissertation mark at a bare pass for a period, left him consumed by worries for a semester, led him to defer his exams and delayed his graduation (BBC report based on the student's account, the marker's notes and a university statement).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the student whose dissertation was the subject of the misconduct finding. He is counted under other people harmed because no use of AI by the student is established.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crelev8gw5xo","primarySourceLabel":"BBC News, 10 August 2026: \"I was accused of using AI in my dissertation but I wrote it all myself\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:32:46.789205+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:32:46.789205+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-use-accusation","academic-integrity","education","appeal-upheld","scotland","ai-involvement-suspected"]}]}