Event date unknownEstoniaUnidentified AI writing tool
According to Delfi Ärileht and ERR (both 26 June 2026), complainants who went to the Tallinn Administrative Court to contest a felling permit sent the court a document that cited scientific work on the effects of clear-cutting. The court found that the Estonian scientists named in the references do not exist and that the studies described could not be found. It asked the complainants how the document had been produced, gave them the chance to submit the cited works, and warned that it could fine them for attempting to mislead the court. The complainants replied that using AI is not forbidden and that they had not meant to mislead the court. The court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine others 50 euros each, saying that complainants are responsible for the accuracy of what they submit. Delfi Ärileht reports that the Tallinn Circuit Court agreed with the administrative court and that the Supreme Court declined the case that week, so the fines are in force. No report names the AI tool.
Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 05/10/2026
5 Sept 2026United StatesGoogle AI Overviews (reported)
Alaska Beacon reported on 28 September 2026 that a Kodiak woman hunted snipe illegally on 5 September after a Google search for snipe season told her the season began on 1 September, according to a wildlife trooper's affidavit attached to a citation filed at the Kodiak district court. The outlet describes the answer as a Google AI overview. She hunted three snipe, grew suspicious on learning that duck season did not open until 8 October, checked the regulations and called troopers to report herself. The outlet reports the trooper said he ran an identical Google search and received identical incorrect information. She pleaded no contest and was fined $150, and told the outlet she felt shame and embarrassment. A Department of Public Safety spokesman said it was the first time he thought the agency had seen AI cited, and that she had acted correctly once she learned of the mistake. Google did not respond to the outlet's request for comment.
Core concern Low reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 05/10/2026
Sept 2026United StatesUnidentified image tool
In September 2026 Republican state Sen. Jay Block posted on social media a fake image of New Mexico Senate President Pro Tem Mimi Stewart made to look like a jail mugshot. The Santa Fe New Mexican (24 September 2026) reports that Block's posts indicate the image was AI-generated and that it showed her ostensibly booked into the Bernalillo County jail on charges of 'hit and run' and 'abusive behavior towards staff and other lawmakers'. Stewart was not issued a citation or booked, and Santa Fe's interim police chief said the 2024 incident in which she drove over a pedestrian's foot was not considered a hit and run crash. Stewart asked Block and the Senate Republican caucus to take down the fabricated image. Block said he stands by the post and has no plans to remove it. KRQE reported on 2 October 2026 that the Democratic Party of New Mexico had filed an ethics complaint over this post and over an image that Senate Republican leader Bill Sharer and the Senate Republicans shared on Facebook in September, which shows House Speaker Javier Martinez wearing a Soviet Union pin, gubernatorial candidate Deb Haaland with her arm around a man in an orange jumpsuit and former state Rep. Joseph Hernandez naked. The party calls both 'misleading AI generated images' that violate a 2024 state law on deepfakes and wants the posts removed and the posters fined.
Core concern Low reported severity Media Coverage
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources · Added 03/10/2026
Event date unknownUnited StatesUnidentified AI search answer
The Spokesman-Review reported on 24 October 2025 that an Idaho Fish and Game spokesperson said a waterfowl hunter in southeast Idaho was caught hunting a day early. According to the spokesperson, the hunter told wardens the opening date came from an online search, and wardens found the search returned an AI answer built from a failed proposal instead of the agency's final decision. As context, Idaho Fish and Game had published a warning on 15 October 2025 stating that conservation officers encounter people using AI and search engines and getting incorrect information, which has led to citations. Wyoming Game and Fish published a notice on 22 October 2025 that AI-generated search results were citing failed bills as current law. The sources do not state whether this hunter was cited, the penalty, the date of the event, or which AI product produced the answer.
Core concern Low reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 29/09/2026
22 Jan 2025 to 24 Feb 2025Event location unknownMX2.law
A Wyoming federal court fined three lawyers a total of $5,000 and removed the drafting lawyer from Wadsworth v. Walmart after a January 2025 filing cited eight nonexistent cases. The order identifies MX2.law as the drafting tool, records failure to verify its output and credits subsequent remedial steps.
Core concern Medium reported severity
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 29/09/2026
Apr 2025Event location unknownUnidentified legal research tool
In a May 2025 order in Lacey v. State Farm, a special master struck supplemental briefs and denied the claimant’s requested discovery relief after her lawyers submitted unverified AI-generated legal material. The order required the two law firms to pay $31,100. It explicitly said the client was not at fault and would not pay that award, and declined further penalties against individual lawyers.
Core concern Medium reported severity
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 29/09/2026
2025Event location unknownUnidentified legal research tool
A June 2025 High Court judgment records that a claimant accepted using AI tools in legal research containing fictitious authorities. His solicitor admitted relying on that research without checking it and said he withdrew from litigated matters. The court referred the solicitor to the regulator, while declining contempt proceedings because it accepted he had not realised the citations were false. The judgment does not establish a later disciplinary penalty.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 29/09/2026
5 Nov 2025 to 8 Jun 2026United StatesFirst Drafts and unidentified legal research tool
In a fee dispute between a Louisiana attorney and the City of Aberdeen, Mississippi, briefs filed for both sides in late 2025 cited six cases that do not exist. The attorneys admitted the citations came from unverified AI use: the plaintiff's out-of-state counsel, Kathleen M. Wilson, drafted her filing with an AI drafting program called 'First Drafts', and the City's out-of-state counsel, Kathryn Y. Williams, used an in-house AI legal research tool. Senior Judge Sharion Aycock stayed the case and cancelled the March 2026 trial, then on 8 June 2026 revoked both attorneys' pro hac vice admissions, barred them from the district for two years and fined them $2,500 and $3,500, and disqualified and fined the two local counsel who had signed the filings. Both litigants were left without counsel and given 60 days to find new representation.
Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 29/09/2026
Nov 2025United StatesChatGPT
In November 2025 Stephens County Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler issued an order in a child paternity and custody case that denied one parent's request for a psychological evaluation of the other parent and reprimanded the requesting parent's attorney 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics'. The attorney challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, telling the justices that it relied on two cases that do not exist; the challenge was dismissed in March after Wheeler vacated the order, and he is no longer on the case. According to a 17 August 2026 letter from the Stephens County district attorney, Wheeler told the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and that at least two citations in it produced by ChatGPT do not exist. The mother in the case told News 9 that learning the order's citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because it concerned the custody of a child. The attorney general's office declined criminal prosecution; judicial discipline remains possible.
Core concern Low reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources · 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.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Internal Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 29/09/2026
1 Nov 2024 to 28 Jan 2026United StatesTurnitin AI-text detector
Orion Newby, an Adelphi University first-year student with language and auditory processing disabilities, received a zero in November 2024 on a World Civilizations paper after the professor suspected it was AI-generated and the university relied in part on AI-detection software; he was ordered to attend a plagiarism workshop and his appeal was denied, leaving him one finding from suspension or expulsion. Newby — who had written the paper with 15-20 hours of tutor support through the university's own disability program — said the detectors flagged his citations, and two other detectors scored the paper as human. After the family sued, New York State Supreme Court Judge Randy Sue Marber in Nassau County ruled on 28 January 2026 that Adelphi's finding and its denial of his appeal were 'without valid basis and devoid of reason' and ordered his record expunged. The family spent six figures on legal costs.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 15/09/2026
12 Mar 2026 to 25 Aug 2026United KingdomUnidentified AI tool
On 25 August 2026 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after finding proved that his 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI — including a non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502' and a miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' that is actually an intellectual-property case — and that his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors. The tribunal said it would have struck him off on that allegation alone; the parallel ground was his January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. This is the SDT's first case on a lawyer's use of AI, per the SRA's counsel.
Core concern High reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 5 sources · Added 15/09/2026
1 Aug 2025 to 9 Sept 2026United StatesChatGPT
Santa Fe defense attorney Stephen Aarons used ChatGPT (OpenAI's o3) on a Rev.com transcript and the record to draft briefing in the murder appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval; the brief contained fabricated witnesses and testimony (including police officers 'Michelle Amarillo' and 'Sanchez' and invented testimony attributed to real people) and misdescribed real precedents. After a 21 August 2026 show-cause hearing at which Aarons admitted he had not verified the output, the New Mexico Supreme Court's written order of 9 September 2026 held him in direct contempt, fined him $5,000 payable to the State Bar Client Protection Fund within 30 days, removed him from the case, barred him from appearing before the court pending a disciplinary-board referral, struck the filed briefs and reassigned the appeal to the public defender.
Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources · Added 15/09/2026
Jul 2025 to Aug 2025United StatesChatGPT
An officer affidavit records one husband's report of incapacitation in two alleged drink-contamination incidents in North Carolina in July and August 2025. Investigators allege that the accused used ChatGPT for related research. Actual chatbot replies and their influence on the alleged conduct were not established in this review.
AI relation under review High reported severity Criminal Charges
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 5 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 09/08/2026