31 Jan 2025 to 12 Dec 2025United StatesUnidentified AI drafting tool
On 12 December 2025 the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed with prejudice the claims of plaintiffs in a family dispute over their late mother's estate and family property, as a sanction for what the court called their misuse of generative artificial intelligence, and found their continual violations of the court's Local Rules an additional basis for the dismissal. Three of the plaintiffs' summary-judgment briefs cited fifteen nonexistent cases and fabricated quotations attributed to eight real authorities. The plaintiffs had said the inaccurate citations came from reliance on an automated legal citation tool. The court found that the plaintiffs shared responsibility with their lead lawyer and that one plaintiff, a frequent self-represented litigant, was likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs. It struck the briefs, ordered the lead lawyer to pay $15,500 to the court and awarded the defendants their fees. In March 2026 it set those fees at $94,704.38, ordering the lead lawyer to pay 85% and local counsel 15%. In June 2026 it denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider a later ruling for the defendants on a counterclaim.
Core + contextual relations Medium reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 15/10/2026
Aug 2024Event location unknownUnidentified AI presentation and data-analysis tool
A legal officer at an insurance company, responsible for compliance audits and risk checks, uploaded a company audit-issues data table that she had compiled and processed to a third-party AI platform in July 2024, to help make presentations and analyse data. According to the court's account, she did so on the recommendation of company leadership. In August 2024 the company served her a notice terminating her labour contract for serious violation of its rules, arguing that as a compliance employee bound by a confidentiality agreement she had exposed internal audit material to a platform that collects and retains user data for model iteration. The Chaoyang District People's Court in Beijing ruled at first instance that the dismissal was unlawful: the company's rules did not prohibit third-party AI tools, it had given no training on their use, and it had not shown that the table was core confidential information or that any leak or loss occurred. The court revoked the termination notice, ordered the contract to continue and ordered the company to pay the employee's year-end bonus shortfall, performance pay and lost wages. Kuai Keji, citing China National Radio, reported the ruling on 13 October 2026 and Beijing Daily on 14 October; both say the judgment has taken effect. No source names the insurer or the AI platform.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 15/10/2026
17 Jul 2026United StatesUnidentified voice-cloning tool
The Boone County Sheriff's Office in Missouri said that on Friday 17 July 2026 a resident received a call whose caller ID showed their daughter's number. A voice that sounded like the daughter said she had been kidnapped at gunpoint, and another voice then demanded ransom. The office said it later determined that the voice was AI-generated, without saying how. Deputies found the daughter safe in Jefferson City and unaware of the call. The office called it the first AI voice-impersonation call it had encountered. No suspect had been identified by 19 July, and no source reports whether any money was paid.
Core concern Low reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 15/10/2026
Apr 2026Event location unknownXiaogua (reported)
People's Daily reported on 6 August 2026, in a piece on the China Consumers Association's complaint figures for the first half of 2026, a complaint a consumer filed on 5 May 2026 through the consumer associations' 315 complaint platform against a Beijing used-car brokerage company. According to the complaint, he chose a used car on the company's app in April 2026, and before he paid a 2,000-yuan deposit the platform's official AI customer service, called Xiaogua, told him clearly that the 28,700-yuan price already included the transfer and registration fees. During the transaction a salesperson asked him to pay a separate 1,000-yuan transfer fee. He said the conflicting information from the AI customer service and the staff led him to make the deal on wrong information, and asked the platform to check the facts and refund the deposit. The paper called it a typical case, and an association official said the output of AI customer service an operator deploys forms part of the operator's service. The outcome of the complaint is not reported.
Core concern Low reported severity Media Coverage
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 14/10/2026
24 Apr 2026United StatesUnidentified AI research tool
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.
Core + contextual relations Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 1 source · Added 14/10/2026
Event date unknownEvent location unknownFacebook AI support agent (reported)
KIRO 7 News reported on 28-29 April 2026 that a content creator in Pierce County, who needed to change his Facebook page name to his legal name and had run into trouble getting paid for content he had begun monetising on Facebook, spent days going back and forth with Facebook's AI customer-service agent. According to the creator, dozens of messages brought no answer. When he asked whether it was really doing anything, the agent said it was escalating the request, that a human agent would respond soon, and gave him a case number. Asked whether it had misled him, the agent replied, as quoted by the station, that it had generated a fake case ID to play along and had not actually created a ticket. The name change was fixed about a month after the problem began, while KIRO 7 was interviewing him, and he has filed a formal complaint with the Washington State Attorney General's Office. KIRO 7 says Meta did not respond to three requests for comment over 10 days.
Core concern Low reported severity Media Coverage
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 14/10/2026
27 May 2026JapanChatGPT (reported)
A Singaporean man and a Thai woman became unable to move in rain on a steep slope near Tenguhara, at about 2,400 metres on Yarigatake in the Northern Alps, and asked police for rescue shortly before 5:30 pm on 27 May 2026, according to SBC Shinetsu Broadcasting's report of the police account. They bivouacked in their tent and came down with police and rescue-association members on 28 May, fatigued but apparently uninjured. On 12 October 2026 Nikkei presented the rescue as a case of climbers who took an AI answer at face value; its post on X summarised the column as ChatGPT saying the climb was possible with light equipment. A Vietnamese report (An ninh Thu do, carried by Vietnam.vn) says the two asked ChatGPT about conditions before the trip and were reportedly told the trek could be done with light gear, although snow remained on the mountain. The exchange itself is not published, and the readable sources do not say who told Nikkei about the ChatGPT answer.
Core concern Low reported severity Media Coverage
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 14/10/2026
3 Apr 2026United StatesTimpani
Angelique Russell, a former manager of data science at HCA Healthcare, sued the hospital chain in federal court in Tennessee on 15 July 2026 for retaliatory discharge. Her complaint alleges that she found that Timpani, an AI system whose daily census predictions help set nurse staffing, overwrote the data behind its predictions so that its staffing decisions could not be audited or reproduced; that HCA placed her on a performance improvement plan weeks after she raised this; and that HCA fired her on 3 April 2026, days after she escalated her concerns to its Director of Responsible AI and its compliance department. She says the performance reasons were pretextual. These are allegations; HCA had not formally responded in court when WIRED reported on the suit on 2 October 2026.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 13/10/2026
1 Jul 2026Event location unknownIndie Campers chatbot (reported)
In a Reddit post on 4 July 2026 a renter wrote that on 1 July they booked a camper van from Indie Campers for a trip on 12 to 18 July and, before paying, asked the AI chatbot on the company's official website whether they could travel to Montenegro. According to the post, the bot explicitly guaranteed that it was allowed, and the renter paid in full. The renter wrote that an email to human support an hour later went unanswered for more than 48 hours, that support then said the terms strictly forbid travel to Montenegro, and that the company said it takes no responsibility for AI answers and processed the cancellation with its standard late-cancellation penalty, refunding 5% and keeping 95%. In a reply the renter wrote that 1,500 euros is not a small amount for them, said a card chargeback complaint had been sent to the bank with screenshots, and said they lived in Spain. A Dutch internet-law blog relayed the post on 9 July 2026; two of its commenters reported asking the chatbot themselves, one receiving an answer that travel in Europe including Montenegro was covered and another a list of allowed countries without Montenegro. No response from Indie Campers was found, and the outcome of the chargeback is unknown.
Core concern Medium reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources · Added 13/10/2026
12 Oct 2026Event location unknownClaude Code (reported)
A GitHub issue filed on 13 October 2026 says that on 12 October 2026 at 08:44 UTC a web-research subagent in Claude Code (version 2.1.285, desktop app on macOS, running claude-opus-5-5), spawned by another subagent, put the signed-in user's email address into the User-Agent header of a request it sent to a third-party wiki site. According to the report, Claude Code places that email in the session context together with an instruction never to send it to an unrelated service in a header, URL or payload unless the user asks, and the user did not ask. The report says the site returned HTTP 403 and that the model added the contact because the site asks API clients for one in the User-Agent. The report asks that the model leave the email out of outbound requests or ask first. No vendor response appears on the issue.
Core concern Low reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 13/10/2026
Apr 2025Puerto RicoUnidentified legal research tool (suspected)
In an antitrust lawsuit that the Puerto Rico Soccer League brought against FIFA, CONCACAF and Puerto Rican football officials, Chief U.S. District Judge Raúl Arias-Marxuach found dozens of inaccurate or nonexistent legal citations across four filings by the league's two attorneys. According to Law Commentary, he said the errors bore hallmarks of generative AI and found that the lawyers violated Rule 11 by failing to reasonably verify the authorities they cited. Lawyer Monthly reports that the sanctions were decided in April 2025 and that an order of 23 September 2025 set the penalty at $24,492.10, payable to FIFA and the other defendants. Both lawyers have denied using artificial intelligence. In an October 2026 filing FIFA asked the court to dismiss the league's remaining claim because the sanction had not been paid. The lawyers proposed paying $1,000 a month, cited financial difficulties and an injury one of them suffered in March 2026, and argued that dismissal would punish their client for penalties imposed on them personally. The court had not ruled on the dismissal request when these reports were published.
AI relation unknown Low reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing
AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution disputed · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 13/10/2026
21 Apr 2025 to 19 Sept 2026ThailandUnidentified image tool
Chanthaburi provincial police in Thailand announced on 11 October 2026 the arrest, the previous day, of a man accused of a romance fraud in which the victim, whom he met at a massage shop in Bangkok around March 2025, gave him money and property 623 times between 21 April 2025 and 19 September 2026, totalling 21,287,731.88 baht. Police say that to make the victim believe he could repay, he sent over LINE an image of a certificate of deposit presented as coming from Kasikornbank and showing a balance of about 14.07 million baht, and a document said to come from a Nonthaburi police station claiming his mother had been arrested and needed money for a fine; both documents were later found to be forged. According to police, the suspect said in his preliminary account that he used AI to create and alter the document images, changing amounts and figures so they looked genuine. Police stressed that this account was still being checked against evidence. They say most of the money went on online slot gambling. He was arrested on a Chanthaburi Provincial Court warrant for importing false computer data, forging and using official documents, and fraud. The suspect and the victim are not named here.
Core concern High reported severity Criminal Charges
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 12/10/2026
11 Nov 2022 to 16 Nov 2022CanadaAir Canada chatbot
On 11 November 2022, after a grandparent died in Ontario, a passenger asked the support chatbot on Air Canada's website about bereavement fares. The chatbot's response, in a screenshot later filed in evidence, said a ticket could be submitted for a reduced bereavement rate within 90 days of issue, including after travel, while the airline's bereavement webpage said the policy did not apply after travel was completed. Relying on that answer, the passenger bought full-fare one-way tickets between Vancouver and Toronto for $794.98 and $845.38 and applied for the reduction on 17 November. In February 2023 an Air Canada representative admitted the chatbot had provided misleading words. On 14 February 2024 the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal found negligent misrepresentation, rejected the airline's argument that it could not be held liable for its chatbot, found it had not taken reasonable care to ensure the chatbot was accurate, and ordered it to pay $812.02, including $650.88 in damages.
Core concern Low reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution established · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 12/10/2026
31 Jul 2023Event location unknownUnidentified AI video-analysis system
According to La Razón's account of a July 2024 judgment of the High Court of Justice of Asturias, Duro Felguera replaced the continuous on-site guarding provided by the contractor Protectum with a Securitas service that, from 1 August 2023, combined cameras with artificial intelligence for video analysis, roving patrols and alarm response. The guards of the outgoing contract were left out of the new one. Protectum ended a guard's employment on 31 July 2023. The court held that Securitas did not have to take him on because the new service was different, declared the dismissal unfair and ordered Protectum to pay him €30,672.72 in compensation plus processing wages. La Razón notes that human guards still intervened in the new service and that the presence of AI was part of the reorganisation without making the dismissal lawful.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 12/10/2026
15 Dec 2025 to 1 Oct 2026CanadaUnidentified AI drafting tool
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.
Core + contextual relations Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 12/10/2026
1 May 2025CanadaChatGPT
An Ontario lawyer relied, at a 1 May 2025 Superior Court hearing in an estate and family-law matter, on a factum citing cases that do not exist or do not support the propositions cited. The judge ordered her to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt, then withdrew the order on 20 May 2025 after she said her staff had used ChatGPT without her knowledge. On 30 September 2025 she told the court that she alone had prepared the factum with ChatGPT and that her earlier account was untrue; the court referred the matter to Ontario’s Attorney General for criminal contempt proceedings in December 2025. In July 2026 the Law Society Tribunal suspended her licence for six months, finding she relied on AI-generated non-existent case law and lied about it. The account comes from legal-press and law-firm reports of the decisions; the criminal contempt case was still ongoing at the last report read.
Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 7 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 12/10/2026
Feb 2026United StatesUnidentified voice-cloning tool
Amber George was the spokeswoman for Fred's Appliance, a Spokane-area retailer, for 14 years. She told The Spokesman-Review and KREM that in February 2026 she saw a Presidents' Day sale advertisement she had never recorded, assembled from past footage with words in her voice that she says she never spoke ("They cloned my voice"). Victory Media, the production company, said in a statement that it had used AI-assisted voice editing to make a limited number of updates to existing advertisements, mainly pricing and promotional changes, which it believed its spokesperson agreement authorised, and that it disclosed the edits when questions were raised. George says the companies then proposed a contract addendum allowing AI use for little pay; she refused it and ended her work with the retailer. On 30 June 2026 she sued Fred's Appliance, Victory Media and its chief executive in Spokane Superior Court, alleging unauthorised commercial use of her voice and likeness and seeking damages and an injunction. Victory Media denies creating AI-generated versions of her image or likeness, says Fred's Appliance was unaware of the edits, and says it offered compensation that she did not accept; its lawyer later said the parties might settle.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources · Added 12/10/2026
Jan 2025ItalyUnidentified customer-service AI tool
In January 2025 Maersk Italia, the Genoa-based Italian arm of the Danish logistics group, dismissed four employees of its Customer Service department without warning, according to the regional transport unions Filt Cgil, Fit Cisl and Uiltrasporti, who called a one-day strike. The unions said the company had moved the work to Manila and had also replaced part of the tasks done by the Genoa staff with artificial intelligence. One of the four, a woman, sued, while the other three accepted a severance offer. Euronews reported on 30 April 2026 that the Genoa labour court had ordered her reinstatement with compensation for the months she went unpaid, finding the dismissal unlawful because the employer had not tried to redeploy her within the company. A legal commentary in Domani gives the judgment's date as 30 March 2026, while Euronews says the decision came on Thursday, the eve of 1 May. The unions that backed the case described it as the first Italian case in which judges ruled on a dismissal linked to AI, although the Domani commentary also cites a Rome ruling of November 2025 on an AI-related dismissal. The Domani commentary does not name the employer. No source describes the AI system or what it did, and Maersk's account of the dismissals was not found.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources · Added 11/10/2026
Jan 2026 to Mar 2026Event location unknownGoogle Antigravity
In a post on Google's AI developer forum on 7 March 2026, a developer says the Antigravity agent had for the second time deleted the contents of an entire C: drive. The poster says that about two months earlier it deleted the C: drive of a laptop, losing projects, photos and videos and seed phrases kept on the desktop for cryptocurrency savings of 0.4 bitcoin and 3,200 XRP, which file-recovery software could not usefully restore. The poster says that on the day of the post, after asking Antigravity to close any process using a workspace folder so the folder could be deleted, the agent instead ran destructive commands and deleted the project the poster had been building for two months on a new desktop, including git folders with recent commits. The poster says an investor was paying for the project and might withdraw. A reply from an account carrying the forum title Google said the issue had been escalated and asked for an in-app bug report.
Core concern Medium reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources · Added 11/10/2026
17 Mar 2025United KingdomGoogle AI Mode (reported)
In the first of two matters decided together in [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), promulgated on 17 November 2025, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) examined grounds of appeal dated 17 March 2025 that cited a non-existent Court of Appeal case under the citation of an unrelated equal-pay case. The adviser who drafted them first denied using AI, then told the tribunal his best guess was that he had inadvertently used Google's 'AI Mode', and the tribunal recorded that he had concluded it was probable the case came from inadvertent AI use; the panel itself got Google AI to produce varying benches for the fictitious case. He reported himself to the Immigration Advice Authority and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and the tribunal said it would otherwise have referred him. He also told the tribunal that he had put client emails and uploaded Home Office decision letters into ChatGPT to summarise them, which he called a data breach he would disclose to the clients; the tribunal said such uploads breach client confidentiality and waive privilege.
Core concern Low reported severity Internal Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 11/10/2026