20 Mar 2025 to 14 Nov 2025Event location unknownUnidentified image tool
The Amsterdam District Court said in March 2026 that a 34-year-old man was suspected of opening 47 bank accounts in other people's names between 20 March and 14 November 2025 by using deepfake technology to mislead a bank's identity-verification system. At the hearing on 17 March 2026, the prosecution said he had beaten ABN AMRO's app check, which compares a face scan with the photo on an identity document, by replacing ID photos with his own and by adjusting his own face photos to resemble the ID photos; the judge noted that a selfie submitted with one woman's identity document showed features of her passport photo. The prosecution said identity documents of the victims in whose names accounts were opened were found on his phone. The man denied knowing of the fraud before late September 2025, and the court reopened the investigation on 31 March to examine his phone data. According to AT5, on 17 June 2026 the court sentenced him to two and a half years in prison, six months of it suspended, and ordered him to pay 13,000 euros to ABN AMRO; AT5 reports that he pasted his victims' facial features onto his own face with AI and that some of the accounts were used for bank-helpdesk fraud and cash withdrawals.
Core concern Medium reported severity Criminal Charges
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources · Added 26/10/2026
May 2023United StatesChatGPT
A Colorado lawyer who had recently moved into civil litigation used ChatGPT in April and May 2023 to find case law for a client's motion to set aside a judgment and cited three Colorado Court of Appeals decisions that did not exist, without reading or checking them. On the morning of the 5 May hearing he realised the cases were fabricated but did not tell the court or withdraw the motion, and when the judge raised concerns he falsely blamed a legal intern; six days later he filed an affidavit saying he had used ChatGPT. The judge denied the motion, said the denial did not rest on the invented cases, and ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned and reported to attorney regulators. On 22 November 2023 Colorado's Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved a stipulation suspending him for one year and one day, with 90 days served and the rest stayed on two years' probation, for violating rules on competence, diligence, candour to the tribunal and honesty.
Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 26/10/2026
Jul 2020TaiwanUnidentified video tool
From July 2020 sexual videos showing the faces of Taiwanese politicians and influencers circulated online. Taiwan's Criminal Investigation Bureau said in October 2021 that the videos had been made by superimposing people's faces onto existing pornographic videos using deep learning technology; PTS describes the makers as a YouTuber with about a million subscribers and his assistant, who sold the videos. Prosecutors counted 119 victims, and the indictment, as reported by Taiwan's public broadcaster PTS, describes the misuse of AI synthesis technology (Deepfake). The New Taipei District Court convicted the pair in July 2022 under the Personal Data Protection Act on 119 counts; on the prosecutors' appeal the High Court increased the YouTuber's sentence, and the Supreme Court upheld it in May 2024, ruling that such videos harm the depicted people's reputation and mental health. In December 2025 the Supreme Court rejected his challenge to an aggregate term of six years and four months, as reported by the Liberty Times. Civil courts ordered the pair to pay NT$1 million each to two women in December 2022 and a total of NT$1.85 million to six women in December 2024.
Core concern High reported severity Criminal Charges
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 6 sources · Added 26/10/2026
23 Feb 2024United KingdomMetropolitan Police live facial recognition
On 23 February 2024 Shaun Thompson, a London community volunteer whom the 2026 judgment describes as 39, walked past a Metropolitan Police live facial recognition deployment near London Bridge station. The High Court records as not in dispute that the system detected a high level of facial similarity between images of him and the watchlist image of his brother, who was the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant, and generated an alert. According to the court's account, officers stopped, detained and questioned him and made him prove his identity, and when he declined to have his fingerprints taken he was threatened with arrest; he says the experience left him angry and distressed. Officers ended the engagement after checking police records about his brother, and he confirmed his identity with a passport photograph on his phone. Big Brother Watch, whose director was his co-claimant, says he was held for almost 30 minutes despite showing several identity documents. His judicial review claim about the stop, issued in May 2024, was withdrawn under a consent order agreed on 18 December 2024 on terms including a settlement sum paid to him. An amended challenge to the Met's revised live facial recognition policy of September 2024, brought with Big Brother Watch's director, was dismissed by the Divisional Court on 21 April 2026; the court said it was not judging the merits of the technology, and the claimants announced plans to appeal.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 4 sources, 3 underlying accounts · Added 26/10/2026
Event date unknownBrazilMicrosoft text-to-speech (reported)
A professional voice actor sued a São Paulo shopping centre, saying it used the actor's voice without authorisation in a marketing campaign shown on YouTube, and claimed lost earnings and moral damages. The centre answered that the voice was not the actor's but a synthetic voice produced with Microsoft's text-to-speech service, available to the public. According to the legal news site ConJur, a judge of the 18th Civil Court accepted that the voice was produced synthetically and dismissed the claim; on appeal the actor argued that a notarised record attesting to the similarity of the voices had never been assessed. The 6th Private Law Chamber of the São Paulo Court of Justice annulled that judgment for curtailment of the defence, holding that the use of AI does not by itself rule out misuse of third parties' rights, and sent the case back for evidence on how the campaign voice was generated and how similar it is to the actor's. The court docket shows the case back at first instance at the court-expert stage in 2025; no ruling on the merits is reported. Whether the AI voice reproduces the actor's voice is disputed.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution disputed · 2 sources · Added 26/10/2026
1 Dec 2025CzechiaUnidentified legal research tool
On 1 December 2025 the presiding judge of a chamber of the Czech Constitutional Court fined a Prague lawyer 25,000 crowns (a quarter of the statutory maximum) for grossly obstructing proceedings. The lawyer had filed a constitutional complaint, for a client refused a temporary residence permit, that argued from 12 decisions of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights; the court found that a substantial part of them did not exist and part were grossly misinterpreted. The order says the complaint showed signs of generative AI and that the court presumed the lawyer had generated it with an AI model and then failed to verify the citations. The lawyer confirmed to INFO.CZ that an AI tool was used, described it as a paid professional model from a legal information system provider, said the output was not checked enough, and expressed regret. The court invited the client to correct the complaint so that the client would suffer no procedural harm; the complaint was later rejected as manifestly unfounded on 30 January 2026. INFO.CZ reported on 10 December 2025 that the lawyer had apologised and paid the fine and that the Czech Bar Association's supervisory board was examining the case.
Core + contextual relations Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 5 sources · Added 26/10/2026
Jun 2024Event location unknownUnidentified face-swap and voice-synthesis tool
A CCTV News report of 29 September 2026 says the Hangzhou Internet Court in Zhejiang recently concluded a portrait-rights case brought by a beauty blogger. According to the report, from June 2024 an online skincare-sales company, without the blogger's consent, took short videos and livestream footage the blogger had published and used AI synthesis to make more than 30 fake videos in which the blogger appeared to promote its products. The court found that the company had used AI face swap and the recombination of image and sound tracks to fabricate the videos for commercial gain, infringing the blogger's portrait rights. In court the company acknowledged that it had synthesised and published the videos without the blogger's authorisation, said staff had made them out of fun and curiosity, and said it had taken them all down after receiving the lawsuit papers. The court ordered the company to pay 15,000 yuan for economic loss and the costs of protecting the blogger's rights and 5,000 yuan in compensation for emotional distress, and to publish an apology prominently on the platform concerned for at least 30 days. The blogger's claim that the products sold more than 100,000 orders was not accepted as proof of loss or profit.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 26/10/2026
19 Aug 2025IndiaUnidentified AI tool
On 19 August 2025 a trial court in Andhra Pradesh hearing a suit for an injunction over a property dismissed the defendants' objections to an advocate-commissioner's report on the property, relying on four purported Supreme Court judgments that, according to the defendants and later the courts, do not exist. The defendants challenged the order in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which, as the Supreme Court recorded, realised the judgments were AI-generated, recorded a word of caution, and on 21 January 2026 dismissed their petition on the merits. On appeal, the Supreme Court said in an order of 27 February 2026 that it took cognisance of the trial court deploying AI-generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments, that a decision based on such judgments is not an error in decision making but misconduct, and directed that the trial court not proceed on the basis of the advocate-commissioner's report while the appeal is pending. In May 2026 the Supreme Court asked the Bar Council of India to set up an expert panel on AI-generated fake judgments. The AI tool is not named, the sources read do not name the judge, and no outcome of the appeal had been reported in the sources read.
Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Internal Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 25/10/2026
2024GermanyMicrosoft Copilot
A court reporter from the Tübingen area found in 2024 that Microsoft's Copilot, asked about him, described him as a man charged in a child abuse case, an escapee from a psychiatric institution and a fraudster who cheated widows, according to his account to the public broadcaster SWR as relayed by heise and ComputerBild. All were defendants in trials he had covered as a journalist. heise and ComputerBild, both citing SWR, report that Copilot also gave his private phone number and full home address and offered a route there. He told The Register that seeing his name tied to these crimes was traumatising and that prosecutors had rejected his criminal complaint in two instances; according to the SWR account relayed by heise, the complaint failed because no real person was the author. After the Bavarian data-protection authority contacted Microsoft the claims were briefly unavailable and then returned. Microsoft told The Register it had investigated and taken appropriate and immediate action.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Internal Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 3 underlying accounts · Added 25/10/2026
Apr 2025NetherlandsChatGPT
The Rechtbank Overijssel (Zwolle location) ordered on 5 January 2026 that a couple's marriage record of April 2025 be struck out of the Zwolle register of marriages, holding that no marriage had come into existence. The couple had asked an acquaintance to conduct the ceremony as a one-day special registrar, and because they wanted a light-hearted ceremony the officiant wrote the speech with the help of ChatGPT. The speech, which the court quotes, asked the partners to stand by each other and declared them 'a team', but it did not contain the declaration that Dutch civil law (article 1:67(1) of the Civil Code) requires spouses to make. The public prosecution service says it brought the case after a report from the municipality. The couple said the error was not their responsibility, that the municipal registrar present had not corrected it, and that losing their wedding date had a great emotional impact; the court refused their request to keep the original date.
Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 25/10/2026
2025Event location unknownChatGPT
A former employee who had resigned in writing on 19 October 2022 applied to Australia's Fair Work Commission almost two and a half years later to have a general protections dismissal dispute dealt with, and asked for an extension of time for a delay of 919 days. In [2025] FWC 2289 (8 August 2025) the Deputy President recorded that he confirmed using ChatGPT to prepare the application, that the application included ChatGPT advice saying his former employer had contravened various obligations and suggesting he commence legal actions including this one, and that the Commission could see no basis for that advice. ChatGPT had also advised him to consult a lawyer or union representative, which he did not do. The Commission said he simply followed ChatGPT's suggestion, called the proceedings hopeless, found that his reliance on ChatGPT to bring an apparently unmeritorious claim told against an extension, announced its refusal at a conference on 6 August 2025 and dismissed the application.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 25/10/2026
2024RussiaUnidentified AI tools
T-Zhurnal (T-Bank's magazine) reported on 16 September 2026, in a lawyer's account of two court decisions, that the sewing company employing a Moscow resident as a full-time manager began cost-cutting in mid-2024 and introduced neural-network and AI technology, and told her that from July she would work 09:00 to 11:00, eight hours a week, with pay reduced in proportion. She refused and was dismissed for refusing to continue work after changes to her contract terms. The employer said that since it began introducing AI many of the manager's tasks were done by programs and full-time work was no longer needed, and that she had worked badly; she said the change was a disguised redundancy and that her post was to be cut and partly replaced by programs and AI. According to the article, the district court (case 2-1354/2025) found that other employees confirmed the cost-cutting and that the manager's work was planned to be fully replaced by neural networks, held that the refusal of part-time work had to be treated as a redundancy, and ordered her reinstatement with back pay and moral damages. The Moscow City Court (case 33-34099/2025) upheld the reinstatement and reduced the back-pay calculation; the court's case portal lists that appeal as concluded on 24 July 2025. The amounts are not given.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources · Added 25/10/2026
2025RussiaAntiplagiat AI-text detector
RAPSI and BIZNES Online reported on 8 and 10 June 2026 that the Supreme Court of Tatarstan upheld a ruling that a private Moscow university unlawfully expelled a distance-learning student in 2025 over suspected use of AI in her graduation thesis. According to the university's representatives in court as reported, the Antiplagiat.Vuz system first showed about 41% (41.91%) AI-generated text, her supervisor then said the word order had been deliberately disturbed in more than 70% of the text, and a third check showed 11.92%. BIZNES Online also reports, from the court documents, that a university representative told the court the supervisor does not operate the checking system and had not in fact analysed the text for neural-network generation, and could not explain how the system distinguishes borrowed text from AI generation. The university refused the revised work as late (uploaded on Monday 9 June 2025 against a deadline of 8 June) and expelled her; the department's protocol cited a breach of good-faith work in the Antiplagiat.Vuz system. She denied using AI. In January 2026 the Vakhitovsky District Court of Kazan held the expulsion unlawful, ordered her reinstatement for a check of her thesis and, if it met the originality threshold, admission to the defence, and awarded 40,000 roubles in moral damages and a 20,000-rouble fine. The Supreme Court of Tatarstan dismissed the university's appeal: it held that the probabilistic report had not been checked by a competent expert and could not be the sole proof of bad faith, noted that the same text was classified as AI-generated in one report and not in another, and found no evidence that any flagged fragments resulted from her deliberate acts rather than her sources or an incorrect algorithm. The courts also held the deadline had been miscounted.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 25/10/2026
May 2024ItalyUnidentified speech-to-text tool
In May 2024 a businessman questioned as a suspect in the Genoa prosecutors' inquiry into alleged bribes to the president of the Liguria region was recorded in the official transcript of his interrogation before the preliminary-investigations judge as saying that the president wanted 'finanziamenti illeciti' (unlawful financing). According to Corriere della Sera, on receiving the transcript he wrote to the judge to contest it, saying he had said 'finanziamenti leciti' (lawful financing); his lawyer said the legally valid handwritten record did not contain the word. Il Post reports that the passage had been highlighted in the headlines of many newspapers in the following days as confirming the prosecutors' accusations, and that a second hearing of the audio was needed to settle it. La Repubblica reported on 27 May 2024 that, at an ad hoc hearing, the businessman confirmed he had said 'leciti', with the prosecutor's agreement according to his lawyer, and the judge took note; it wrote that the fault appears to lie with the automatic software that transcribes words spoken in court. Il Post reports that checks found the error was not human and that the transcript had been produced by speech-to-text software. The software is not named.
Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Internal Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources · Added 25/10/2026
23 Jun 2025NetherlandsChatGPT
On 23 June 2025 a recruitment agency summarily dismissed a recruitment consultant it had employed since January 2024, giving seven grounds in its dismissal letter. One ground, misuse of company resources and an integrity breach, concerned questions he had put to ChatGPT on his work laptop about how to obtain a severance payment from the employer: the employer said he made defamatory statements about it there and breached his duty of confidentiality with the information he entered. He did not dispute the queries. In a decision given on 27 February 2026, the sub-district judge of the Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant ruled the dismissal invalid, because the employer had not established another ground and the seven grounds formed a single composite reason. On the ChatGPT ground the judge found that private use of the laptop had not been forbidden, that he had shared only information about his employment relationship and no company secrets, and that this was culpable to a limited extent. In a final decision of 22 May 2026 the court awarded him a transition payment of 2,976.04 euros gross, fixed damages of 4,565.70 euros gross and costs, but refused the 25,000 euros of fair compensation he sought, weighing his limited income loss and his own culpable conduct, which it listed as including his sharing of information about the employment relationship. His fixed-term contract would have ended on 1 August 2025, when he started a new job.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 25/10/2026
Event date unknownEvent location unknownUnidentified image tool
According to the court press services of the Bryansk and Lipetsk regions, as relayed by 7info (4 June 2026) and CNews (5 June 2026), the Zadonsk district court in the Lipetsk region convicted a local man of illegally making and distributing pornographic material. He had created a social-media group with erotic content and, to fill it, downloaded photographs of nine women from open accounts and used neural networks to turn them into pornographic photo-collages with naked bodies, which were published openly without the knowledge or consent of the women depicted. He admitted guilt and fully compensated all the victims for moral harm. The court sentenced him in June 2026 to three years' imprisonment, suspended, with five years' probation and a ban on administering internet sites, pages and other resources for the same period. When the images were made and how long the group was online are not stated.
Core concern Medium reported severity Criminal Charges
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 24/10/2026
13 Apr 2024BrazilUnidentified facial recognition system
During the half-time interval of the Sergipe state football championship final at the Batistão stadium in Aracaju on 13 April 2024, military police took a personal trainer from the stands to a police room after the stadium's facial recognition system flagged him as a man with an open arrest warrant; he was searched and questioned and released once police confirmed he was not the person sought (G1, his lawyer and the military police). Sergipe's governor publicly regretted 'the failure of the facial recognition tool' and suspended its use until a new protocol was adopted. In June 2024 the man sued the state for 550,000 reais in moral damages; the state argued that the Aracaju municipality, not the state, had contracted the system. In December 2025 the judge rejected that preliminary objection, according to Mangue Jornalismo, which read the court file. No final judgment is reported.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 24/10/2026
Event date unknownTürkiyeUnidentified AI research tool
Kısa Dalga reported on 17 June 2026 that a lawyer in Ankara faced investigations by the prosecutor's office and the Ankara Bar after a petition the lawyer signed in a civil case at a court in the Kızılcahamam district cited Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) decisions with wrong case and decision numbers. According to the lawyer, three lawyers prepared the petition and used AI only to support it with case law; the AI tool inserted existing Court of Cassation decisions but wrote their reference numbers wrongly. Opposing counsel raised the citations at the hearing, and the same day the court wrote to the bar and the prosecutor; the lawyer says the court stated the decisions could not be found as cited in the national judicial system (UYAP) and that the numbers gave the impression of having been written at random. The lawyer says the prosecutor did not specify the alleged offence, that the error was unintentional, and that the lawyer became a joke among colleagues. A lawyers' rights group called the investigations pressure on the defence. The AI tool is not named, the hearing date is not given and no outcome of either investigation has been reported.
Core concern Low reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 24/10/2026
Apr 2025ChinaUnidentified video tool
On 20 March 2026 the Beijing Internet Court announced a portrait-rights judgment over an online short drama in which, it found, the production company used deep-synthesis (AI face-swap) technology to generate an image highly similar to a well-known actress, according to Beijing Daily and a Sina Finance report drawing on it. In April 2025 internet users had questioned whether the drama had face-swapped a performer into the actress, and many believed she had appeared in it. The court found that two segments of the 44-episode, roughly 90-minute drama used AI face-swapping and that the face resembled the actress closely enough for the public to identify her. The maker argued that the image was generated by AI without any prompt relating to her and could not reproduce its process in court. The court held the maker liable for portrait-rights infringement and the broadcaster liable for failing to review the content, and ordered both to post written apologies on their video accounts and pay economic damages; neither appealed. The amount is not reported in the sources read.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 24/10/2026
May 2023ItalyUnidentified image tool
A graphic designer hired in March 2022 by a cybersecurity company was dismissed in May 2023 for a justified objective reason, which the company gave as an internal reorganisation and the suppression of her post to contain costs during an economic crisis. She challenged the dismissal, arguing that the reorganisation was a pretext and that her tasks had been redistributed to other workers, not eliminated. According to legal press reports of the judgment, the company said the graphic-design tasks were first absorbed by other staff and the residual work was then done partly with the support of artificial-intelligence tools, which the marketing manager used to produce graphics of adequate quality at lower cost and in less time. The labour section of the Tribunale di Roma (judgment no. 9135 of 19 November 2025) found a real crisis and reorganisation, no possibility of redeploying her, and upheld the dismissal. The reports say the court treated AI as one of the tools the company used to make its structure more efficient, not as an autonomous cause of the dismissal; a commentary in Giustizia Insieme calls the publicity around a first dismissal caused by AI out of proportion to the ruling. The judgment itself was not read, and whether it was appealed is not reported.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution disputed · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 24/10/2026