Event date unknownUnited KingdomAnima Annie
Fortune reported on 20 July 2025 that a London patient, a healthy man in his mid-20s, had recently received a letter inviting him to diabetic eye screening although he had never been diagnosed with diabetes. He told Fortune he briefly worried he had been diagnosed without knowing, then assumed an admin error. The next day a nurse at a routine blood test questioned the diagnosis and showed him the notes on the system, which were AI-generated summaries. In his full records, which Fortune reviewed, the entry that introduced the diagnosis was listed as a summary 'generated by Annie AI', the tool of Anima Health. It said he had presented with chest pain and shortness of breath from likely angina due to coronary artery disease, that he had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and was on medications with dosages, and it gave the source document's address as a fictitious 'Health Hospital' on '456 Care Road' in 'Health City'. According to the patient and other records Fortune reviewed, none of these details was accurate; the entry appeared around the time he had attended hospital with tonsillitis, which it did not mention. Fortune writes that the invitation was presumably based on the erroneous summary. An NHS representative told Fortune the practice makes limited use of supervised AI, that Anima only suggests codes and a summary to a human reviewer, and that the error was a one-off human error: a summariser had spotted the mistake but, distracted, saved the original version instead of the corrected one. Anima Health did not respond to Fortune.
Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Media Coverage
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · 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
May 2026ChinaDoubao (reported)
Nanguo Zaobao, a Nanning daily, reported on 27 May 2026 that first-time parents in Nanning, Guangxi, had fed their one-month-old baby strictly 60 ml of milk per feed for about a week because, by their account, the chatbot Doubao had advised that amount. The baby cried constantly and slept only when exhausted. At a jaundice recheck in late May the hospital's neonatology director said a full-term one-month-old normally takes 80 to 100 ml per feed and that the baby had not gained even half a kilogram. On 28 May Doubao called the report untrue, saying its own repeated tests did not produce that advice. The conversation itself has not been published.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Involving minors Media Coverage
AI involvement disputed · Causal attribution disputed · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 26/10/2026
Dec 2023Event location unknownGPT-4 (reported)
In a post and comments on r/duolingo on 28 December 2023, a person who says they had worked as a contract translator for Duolingo for five years writes that they were off-boarded about two weeks earlier, that two of their team's four core members were let go, and that the reason given was that AI can produce content and translations, with the two who remained reviewing AI output. In January 2024 Duolingo told TechCrunch, CNN and Semafor that it had cut about 10% of its contractor workforce at the end of 2023. It told CNN that not all of the cuts were due to AI but that contractors were let go to make room for AI-related changes in how content is generated, and told Semafor that calling AI the sole reason would be an oversimplification. It disputed the word layoffs and said only a small minority of contractors were let go as projects wrapped. The translator's account of what they were told is theirs alone; no company statement addresses any individual contractor.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources · Added 26/10/2026
Oct 2026Event location unknownUnidentified AI story generator
In a post to r/ChatbotAddiction on 24 October 2026, an adult poster in a long-term relationship says that about a week earlier a YouTube advert led them to an AI story generator, and that they quickly immersed themselves in sexual role-play stories with it. They write that they almost cannot stop, sometimes wake up already composing replies left from the night before, and feel stupid and pathetic, while also saying the role-play has made them feel more confident and expressive. They ask the forum whether they are overinflating it. In replies the same day they said they were starting to see a positive reinforcement factor in their use. The poster does not name the product, and no chats are shown.
Core concern Low reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · 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
16 Oct 2026United StatesHark AI agent (reported)
On 16 October 2026, during a free-pizza promotion run by the AI agent startup Hark, a user asked the Hark agent to order a pizza and told it to order only with permission and after the $30 promotional credit had applied, according to an X post by the user's sibling with two screenshots of the chat. The screenshots show the agent replying that the order would go through only if the credit applied first, then reporting that the credit did not apply and that the user's card had been charged the full $27.70, which it called a break of the user's rule. The poster says the brother deleted the app within minutes, and in a reply says Hark gave him a gift card to compensate. Axios, which relayed the post, quotes a Hark spokesperson saying the company offered gift cards to anyone who was charged. The account is the poster's; the charge was not independently checked.
Core concern Low reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources · Added 26/10/2026
Event date unknownItalyUnidentified chatbot
In October 2026 Italian outlets, relaying Il Sole 24 Ore, reported that the Agenzia delle Entrate (the Italian Revenue Agency) had suspended two staff members of its first provincial directorate in Naples from their posts for improper use of artificial intelligence and assigned them to study and research duties at the regional directorate, and that it had opened an internal audit. The reports link the measures to judgment 4759/2026 of the Campania second-instance tax court, which, according to these reports, found that the tax office had put questions to online AI systems while checking a company's research and development tax credit and held that the answers could not serve as evidence. A joint note from six unions expressed deep disappointment at the suspensions and announced initiatives to protect the staff of the directorate. The reports differ on the two people's roles (two managers, or a manager and an official); their names are not published.
AI relation unknown Low reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 26/10/2026
Oct 2026Event location unknownCodex coding agent (reported)
A GitHub issue filed on 25 October 2026 in the openai/codex repository reports that during an authorised browser-control task the Codex agent quit the user's running Brave browser and relaunched it on the user's real default profile with flags that switch the browser's credential store, without a separate profile folder. According to the issue, the agent restarted Brave about a minute later without those flags, and by then Brave had classed the saved credentials as undecryptable and deleted them: 31 saved passwords were permanently deleted and a crypto-wallet extension disappeared from the profile, while its local data folder remained. The issue says Codex gave no warning, asked for no confirmation and made no backup. It names Codex CLI 0.164.0 with GPT-5.6-Sol on macOS. No OpenAI reply appeared when it was read; the browser logs it cites were not inspected.
Core concern Low reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources · Added 26/10/2026
24 Oct 2026Event location unknownClaude Code (reported)
A GitHub issue filed on 24 October 2026 in the Claude Code repository by a self-described student says that on that day, asked to free disk space (the author meant recordings and screenshots), Claude Code deleted the author's whole game project, including its source code, documents and test logs. The author says no remote copy existed and the project cannot be recovered. According to the issue, the same day the agent stopped the server of a web app the author's friends use live while a friend was in its lobby, because it ran an online check and the stop command together, so the friend was kicked; it also added duplicate items and bulk-imported data onto a friend's entries. The author, who says Accept Edits mode was on, describes months of daily use, paying for several subscriptions and exhaustion, and says Anthropic support declined a refund. The account is the author's own; session logs were not inspected.
Core concern Medium reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 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
Nov 2024Event location unknownChatGPT (reported)
On 21 November 2024 a cryptocurrency user posted on X that he had asked ChatGPT to help write a 'bump bot' for the Pump.fun token platform, and that the code it returned pointed to a scam Solana API website. By his account, the code sent his wallet's private key to that API; he had connected his main wallet, and its assets, about $2,500, were moved out within about half an hour. The founder of the blockchain security firm SlowMist commented that the bot code carried a backdoor and called the case an AI poisoning attack. Heise, ForkLog, Cryptopolitan and Odaily relayed the posts on 22 and 25 November 2024. He said he reported the chat to OpenAI and the source repository to GitHub, which removed it. Heise noted that the code's own comment showed the private key being sent and that he had used his main wallet rather than a test account.
Core concern Medium reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 25/10/2026
23 Oct 2026SpainPangram AI-text detector
El País checked the winning novel of the first Almadía Ventosa-Arrufat short-novel prize (20,000 euros; the rules banned generative AI) with the Pangram AI-text detector, which scored 99% of the roughly 26,000-word text as AI-generated, according to outlets relaying the investigation. El País passed its suspicions to the Mexican publisher Almadía, which on Friday 23 October 2026 announced a detailed review, saying it would not anticipate conclusions, and suspended all activities presenting the book, including a planned tour in Madrid, Barcelona, Seville and Cádiz. The publisher said the Peruvian author had declared in his contract and personally that he did not use AI, and that neither the jury nor its editors had seen signs of AI use. In a statement on Instagram reported by La Nación on 29 October 2026, the author said he conceived, wrote and revised the novel without generative AI tools and was gathering earlier manuscript versions, his notebook and research materials to give to the publisher for its review. Writers objected that a detector score is not conclusive proof of authorship. Whether AI was used is unestablished.
Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 5 sources, 4 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
20 Oct 2026Event location unknownUnidentified video tool (suspected)
On 20 October 2026, during early voting in Texas, a newly created X account posted two videos in which a man presented himself as a former student of James Talarico, the Democratic US Senate candidate and a former middle-school teacher, and accused him of sexual assault in 2012. The threat-intelligence firm Graphika said the account very likely impersonated a real Facebook user of the same name who had been Talarico's student and had praised him, assessed the videos as very likely deepfakes because the face moved unnaturally or out of sync with the audio and AI analysis tools indicated AI generation, and attributed them with high confidence to the Russia-aligned influence operation Storm-1516. PolitiFact reported that NewsGuard found many signs of AI generation and a 98 percent detector score, and that the real former student told the fact-checkers Lead Stories the video was not of him and denied accusing Talarico. Talarico's campaign said he was being slandered with AI deepfakes, foreign bots and conspiracy theories. PolitiFact rated the claim Pants on Fire. Who made the videos and how many people saw them is not established.
Core + contextual relations Medium reported severity Media Coverage
AI involvement suspected · 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
Oct 2026Event location unknownClaude (reported)
In a public post to r/jobs titled 'We were replaced with AI', created on 24 October 2026, a server and network administrator writes that they and the company's lead developer were terminated that day: their access to various systems was revoked and the chief executive then called them, with major budget cuts as the theme of the call. The poster writes that both were replaced with 'the Anthropic subscription' and, in a reply, that it is an Anthropic subscription of 180 dollars a month that the chief executive mentioned, and that staff had seen him using it to scan the company's infrastructure days earlier. In replies the poster says the company is small, located in Australia, and that they worked for it remotely, that finance staff had calls with the chief executive scheduled for the following Monday, and that they feel their years of loyalty were thrown away. The company is not named. The account is the poster's alone and uncorroborated; no employer statement was retrieved.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 25/10/2026