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
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
May 2025United StatesUnidentified video tool
At a sentencing hearing in May 2025 in Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona, the family of a man killed in a 2021 road-rage shooting in Chandler played a video that combined real footage with an AI-generated likeness and voice of the victim delivering a script written by his sister, including statements of forgiveness addressed to the defendant. The judge said he loved the video, described it as genuine and referred to the forgiveness it expressed, then imposed the presumptive 10.5-year term for manslaughter, longer than the nine years the prosecutor had requested. The defense attorney appealed immediately. On 30 September 2026 the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but vacated the sentence, holding that the AI video was not reliable and that the judge's consideration of it so prejudiced the defendant that the sentencing procedure was fundamentally unfair. The opinion says the record does not show precisely how the video factored into the sentence, and that there is no question it played a role. The case returns to the trial court for resentencing; as of 1 October 2026 no new sentencing date had been set.
Core + contextual relations Medium reported severity
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 7 sources, 6 underlying accounts · Added 02/10/2026
Dec 2025CanadaGoogle AI Overviews
In December 2025 Cape Breton fiddler Ashley MacIsaac said a First Nation north of Halifax cancelled his concert planned for 19 December after reading a Google AI-generated search summary that said he had convictions for sexual offences. He says the statements were false and came from online articles about another man in Atlantic Canada with the same last name. The First Nation apologised in writing and Google amended the search results. MacIsaac says he feared for his safety and worries about other lost work. In a statement of claim filed in February 2026 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice he seeks damages of 1.5 million from Google (US dollars in the Globe and Mail copy of the Canadian Press story, no currency stated in the CBC copy). None of its claims has been tested in court, and the claim says Google did not admit responsibility.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 5 sources, 3 underlying accounts · Added 29/09/2026
1 Jul 2025 to 17 Dec 2025United StatesEightfold Match Score
Two job applicants filed a proposed class action on 20 January 2026 in California state court (removed to federal court on 2 March 2026) against Eightfold AI Inc. The complaint alleges that Eightfold's hiring tools collect applicant data and produce a 0-to-5 'Match Score' that employers use to rank candidates, without the notice, access and dispute rights the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a California statute require. One plaintiff says she applied to Microsoft in or around July 2025 and again in December 2025 and received an automated rejection two days after the first application. The other says she applied to PayPal in December 2025. Both say they were not interviewed or hired and believe Eightfold's tools played a role. Eightfold says it does not scrape social media and operates on data candidates or customers provide. The allegations are unproven and Eightfold filed a motion to dismiss (no ruling appears in the docket entries inspected).
Contextual tracker case Low reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 29/09/2026
12 Mar 2025 to 3 Apr 2025United StatesChatGPT
In March and early April 2025 (the opinion gives no date for the ChatGPT step), a DOGE staff member working with the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) submitted short grant descriptions to ChatGPT with a prompt asking whether each project related at all to DEI, and the answers were combined with NEH staff ratings into lists of grants to terminate. More than 1,400 NEH grants (over $100 million) were terminated in notices sent 1 to 3 April 2025. A federal district court found the mass termination unlawful in May 2026 and described the ChatGPT step in its findings. Seven individual grantees who sued report lost or interrupted funding for their research and writing projects. The opinion does not state whether ChatGPT reviewed those seven grants.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution unclear · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 29/09/2026
Jun 2025Event location unknownChatGPT
A Delaware Court of Chancery opinion of 16 March 2026 finds that in June 2025 the CEO of Krafton, after being warned that a dismissal with cause would not eliminate a contingent earnout obligation, consulted ChatGPT. The chatbot answered that the earnout would be difficult to cancel, suggested an internal task force (Project X) whose mandate was to negotiate a deal or execute a takeover of the studio, and prepared a "Response Strategy to a No-Deal Scenario" that recommended locking down the studio's Steam and console publishing rights and build-pipeline access. The court found that Krafton followed most of these recommendations over the next month: it locked the studio out of its Steam publishing rights, which severed the studio's practical ability to launch its game and forced the studio's CEO to the negotiating table, posted a message on the studio's websites, and on 1 July 2025 sent termination letters to the studio's two founders and its CEO. The court held that Krafton breached the acquisition agreement by terminating the three executives without valid Cause and by improperly seizing operational control, reinstated the studio's CEO and extended the earnout period by 258 days. The opinion records that the Krafton CEO had begun exploring options including firing the executives before consulting ChatGPT, and does not find that ChatGPT recommended the terminations. Krafton said it disagreed with the ruling. On 1 July 2026 Krafton announced a mutual settlement with the studio and the three executives dismissing all pending proceedings; IGN, citing Bloomberg, reported that the studio's CEO stepped down as part of it.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution unclear · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 29/09/2026
4 Jun 2025 to 15 Oct 2025Event location unknownChatGPT (reported)
On 4 June 2025 a criminal judge in Esquel, Chubut province, convicted a defendant of simple robbery and imposed two years and six months of effective imprisonment. On 15 October 2025 the Penal Chamber of Esquel annulled the judgment and the trial, ordering a new trial before another judge. The chamber found that the ruling contained a pasted phrase from a generative-AI assistant (“Aquí tienes el punto IV reeditado, sin citas y listo para copiar y pegar”), that the AI had been used on the rulings on the nullity of two essential pieces of evidence, and that the judge had not exercised human supervision or recorded the use. Perfil's headline describes the assistant as ChatGPT and La Nación's text as presumably ChatGPT; the quoted ruling and the prosecution office statement refer only to a generative-AI assistant. The chamber referred the judge's conduct to the Chubut Superior Court of Justice for ethical and disciplinary review.
Contextual tracker case Low reported severity
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 29/09/2026
Apr 2025 to May 2025Event location unknownCoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Gemini (reported)
In an order dated 5 May 2025 and filed on 6 May in Lacey v. State Farm (C.D. Cal.), a special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research: about nine of 27 citations were wrong and at least two cited authorities did not exist. One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he could not tell whether particular errors came from his transcription or from a tool; co-counsel at the second firm say they used no AI tools and did not know AI had been used. The order makes the two firms jointly pay $31,100, states the client was not at fault and will not bear the awards, and imposes no penalty on individual lawyers.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · 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.
Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · 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