Sept 2025Event location unknownRevolut chatbot
In September 2025 a Revolut customer asked the bank, through its chatbot, to cash in loyalty points he had earned through its spare change feature. According to the Financial Ombudsman Service's final decision (DRN-6062372), the chatbot first said the 1,119 points would be refunded as £22.38; four days later it told him the 1,119 points had a cash value of £1,119, offered that as a one-time goodwill gesture and confirmed it had processed the refund. A few hours later the chatbot said that information was wrong; a live agent then said the £1,119 refund was being processed, and the next day the chatbot said it had issued £22.38. Revolut upheld his complaint and paid £50. The ombudsman found that Revolut gave him the wrong information on several occasions that day, held that he was never entitled to £1,119, and directed Revolut to pay a further £50. The customer said the lost expected refund caused financial pressure, and gave a GP letter describing anxiety and insomnia.
Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 15/10/2026
Mar 2025United StatesJewish Onliner (suspected)
In March 2025 Yale placed a Yale Law School scholar, who was deputy director of a Yale Law School project, on administrative leave and barred the scholar from campus. The New York Times reports the decision came three days after a news site described as powered at least in part by artificial intelligence published a story on the scholar's connections to Samidoun, a group on a US sanctions list. Inside Higher Ed and Middle East Eye identify the site as Jewish Onliner. The scholar's lawyer says Yale's general counsel named the article as the trigger of the investigation. The scholar told the Times of not being a member of any organization that would violate US law, and the lawyer says the scholar is not a member of Samidoun. A Yale Law School representative told The National that placing an employee on temporary administrative leave while a review is conducted is the appropriate process and that the scholar's short-term position was due to expire the following month. The site says humans fact-check and that AI tools play a significant role in its work. The inspected sources do not show that AI produced the article.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity
AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution alleged · 6 sources, 4 underlying accounts · Added 29/09/2026
8 Oct 2025 to 2 Sept 2026IndiaUnidentified AI tool
On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Surat imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 (about ₹425 crore) on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The trader's challenge was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on 20 January 2026. Before the Supreme Court the trader argued that judgments and articles cited in the penalty order had been generated using artificial intelligence. On 2 September 2026 a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, after checking the material, found that the order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on real cases that did not lay down the propositions attributed to them, which the court said 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'. Holding that the use of AI and reliance on this dubious material was fatal to the order, the court set aside both the penalty order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, sent the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority. The AI tool used is not named in the read reports.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Internal Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 29/09/2026
1 Jun 2025Event location unknownUnidentified AI companion apps
In January 2026, CCTV investigated the '梦角哥' (Dream Boyfriend / Mengjiage) phenomenon — minors forming deep romantic relationships with AI-generated fictional characters. Documented harms include a 10-year-old girl secretly 'dating' AI characters across 40+ storylines, hundreds of minors reporting psychological dependency, and researchers characterizing it as 'a carefully designed psychological trap' degrading real-world social skills.
AI relation under review High reported severity Involving minors Media Coverage
Legacy assessment: verified · Causal attribution supported · Added 29/01/2026
17 May 2025United StatesUnidentified chatbot
The 17 May 2025 Palm Springs fertility-clinic bombing killed its perpetrator and injured four other people, according to official accounts. Prosecutors later said records from an unnamed AI chat application showed attack-related research months earlier. They did not identify the product or publish the complete replies in the inspected release. The chatbot’s contribution to the attack remains unclear.
Core concern Critical reported severity Criminal Charges
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution unclear · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 22/01/2026
20 May 2025FinlandChatGPT
A 16-year-old boy used ChatGPT to help write an attack manifesto with a 10-point attack sequence before stabbing three female students under age 15 at Vähäjärvi school in Pirkkala, Finland. The incident marked a critical inflection point in AI-facilitated violence, demonstrating how accessible AI tools can empower lone actors with violent misogynist ideologies.
AI relation under review Critical reported severity Involving minors Media Coverage
Legacy assessment: credible · Causal attribution supported · Added 22/01/2026
1 Jan 2025United StatesChatGPT
Police said the man responsible for the 1 January 2025 Las Vegas Cybertruck attack used ChatGPT while planning it. He died before the explosion, which injured seven other people. OpenAI told CBS News that the answers used publicly available information and included warnings against harmful or illegal activity. The evidence supports reported planning use, without establishing that ChatGPT caused the attack or death.
Core concern Critical reported severity Media Coverage
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution unclear · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 22/01/2026
25 Dec 2025 to 14 Jan 2026Event location unknownGrok
From late December 2025, xAI's Grok image editing on X let users generate sexualized images of real people at industrial scale, including images of named women and apparent minors. Analyses attributed to Genevieve Oh (7,751 sexualized images in one hour, via NBC), the New York Times (4.4 million images in nine days, at least 41% sexualized images of women, via the NC AG), the AP (2% of a 20,000-image sample appearing to be minors, via Fortune) and CCDH (about 3 million sexualized images over 11 days including roughly 23,000 of minors, via Engadget) documented the scale. Named women — Ashley St. Clair, Samantha Smith and Dr Daisy Dixon — described being undressed by Grok and revictimized when they objected. The wave triggered formal actions by Ofcom, the UK ICO, the EU (DSA), Ireland's DPC, 35 US state attorneys general, the California AG, Baltimore (consumer-protection suit), an Amsterdam court order, country blocks in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, and a Paris police raid; xAI restricted generation to paying subscribers on 9 January and narrowed the feature on 14 January 2026.
Core concern Critical reported severity Involving minors Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 13 sources, 10 underlying accounts · Added 11/01/2026