13 Oct 2025 to 26 Nov 2025BrazilUnidentified video tool
The Federal District Civil Police (PCDF) in Brazil say a criminal group ran fake online donation campaigns that used images of elderly people, children and seriously ill people, and used artificial intelligence tools, including deepfakes, to make fake videos with the images of the singer Gusttavo Lima and the Catholic priests Marcelo Rossi and Fábio de Melo. The posts circulated on social media and sent people to pages imitating legitimate charity appeals; the money went to bank accounts the group controlled. Police say one company linked to the group received 215,575 transactions totalling about R$9.8 million between 13 October and 26 November 2025, mostly of R$30 and R$50, and that the number of transactions does not necessarily match the number of victims. On 28 October 2026 the PCDF launched Operação Cáritas with six preventive arrest warrants and search warrants in the Federal District and four states; five suspects had been arrested by the time of most reports (g1 reported six). How the police established that the videos were AI-made is not disclosed, and no response from the people depicted is reported.
Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 29/10/2026
1 Mar 2023 to 22 Jun 2023Event location unknownChatGPT
In a passenger's personal-injury suit against the airline Avianca in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, an opposition brief filed on 1 March 2023 cited judicial opinions that did not exist. The court found that the lawyer who did the research had used ChatGPT, which fabricated the cases, and that when he asked the chatbot whether one of them was real it replied that it had supplied real authorities that could be found on legal databases. On 22 June 2023 the court found bad faith by the two lawyers, based on their conduct after the citations were questioned, and imposed a USD 5,000 penalty jointly on them and their firm, together with letters to the client and to each judge falsely named as an author of the fake opinions.
Core + contextual relations Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources · Added 28/10/2026
Event date unknownEvent location unknownUnidentified AI tool
The Belgian Pensions Ombudsman (Ombudsdienst Pensioenen) published an anonymised example from its casework. According to the Ombudsman, a future retiree with limited digital skills wanted to apply online for an early retirement pension but did not press the send button, so no application was filed and his pension was not paid in his first month of retirement. The Federal Pension Service told him that an early pension can start at the earliest in the month after the application, so that month could not be paid. He checked this using AI and received the answer that a pension can be paid retroactively for up to one year. He complained to the Federal Pension Service and then to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman confirmed that the service's answer was correct, told him that the information he had found concerned Dutch legislation, referred him to the pension services' websites and says it tried in this way to restore his trust in the pension service. It could not recover the missed month because Belgian pension law has no right to correct good-faith errors. The lost month resulted from the unsubmitted application; the AI answer misinformed him about whether it could be recovered. The tool is not named and the dates of the exchange and complaint are not stated; European Pensions reported the case on 9 July 2026.
Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 24/10/2026
Dec 2023 to Mar 2024United StatesGrammarly (reported)
In late 2023 a junior at a public high school in Hingham, Massachusetts, and a classmate submitted a script for an AP U.S. History project that, a federal court later found on a preliminary record, contained text copied from Grammarly, a publicly available AI tool, including citations to nonexistent books, with no acknowledgement of AI use. Turnitin and other AI detection tools had flagged the script, and a school official says the pupil admitted using Grammarly. In December 2023 the school treated it as cheating: the pupil failed two parts of the project, served a Saturday detention and was rejected from the National Honor Society in spring 2024, though he was later admitted. His parents sued, arguing the school had not made its AI rules clear; on 20 November 2024 the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts refused a preliminary injunction to undo the penalties, and in February 2025 the parties dismissed the case with prejudice.
Core + contextual relations Low reported severity Involving minors Lawsuit Dismissed
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources · Added 23/10/2026
Nov 2020Event location unknownTikTok text-to-speech
Canadian voice actor Bev Standing alleged in a May 2021 federal suit in New York that ByteDance's TikTok was using her voice, without permission or payment, as the female computer-generated voice of its text-to-speech feature, which lets users choose the words spoken over their videos. Her complaint says she discovered this in November 2020, that the voice came from recordings she had made for the Institute of Acoustics for work described as Chinese translations related to text-to-speech, and that some videos made the voice say foul and offensive language. About three weeks after she sued, users noticed a new female voice on the feature (CBC); TikTok did not comment and never confirmed that the original voice was hers. The case was dismissed in September 2021 after her lawyer reported a settlement, whose terms were not disclosed.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Settled
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 23/10/2026
2020United StatesLovo Genny (reported)
Voice-over actors Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage allege in a proposed class action in the Southern District of New York that Lovo, a text-to-speech company, hired them through Fiverr in 2019 and 2020 for recordings it said were for internal research or test scripts, then used its AI software to make and sell clones of their voices under the names "Kyle Snow" and "Sally Coleman". According to the complaint as recounted by the court, they learned of it when they heard a podcast narrated in part by a Lovo-generated voice that they say was identical to Lehrman's, and Lovo answered their cease-and-desist letter by saying the characters were created from those recordings and that its use was "fully permissioned". On 10 July 2025 Judge J. Paul Oetken dismissed most federal trademark and copyright claims but let their New York Civil Rights Law, consumer-protection and contract claims, and Sage's copyright claim over her original recording, proceed. The case was stayed on 28 May 2026 after Lovo filed a suggestion of bankruptcy. The allegations have not been tested at trial.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 5 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 23/10/2026
15 Nov 2022 to 27 May 2023Event location unknownUnidentified video tool
On 26 September 2025 the Federal Court of Australia ordered a man to pay civil penalties of A$343,500 plus costs, in what the eSafety Commissioner said was the first proceeding to impose a civil penalty under the Online Safety Act 2021. On facts he admitted, he posted 12 non-consensual deepfake intimate images of six women ordinarily resident in Australia to a deepfake website between November 2022 and May 2023. He made each one by uploading a photo of the woman found online to a webpage that created semi-naked or naked images and saving the generated image. He refused eSafety's removal notice, so two images stayed online for almost a year, and he admitted posting some later images in retaliation against people involved in issuing the notice. Each woman complained to eSafety, and the court found the posts were likely to have caused them hurt and distress. The eSafety Commissioner called this kind of deepfake abuse a misuse of easily accessible AI tools.
Core concern High reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 5 sources · Added 23/10/2026
28 Sept 2026Event location unknownChatGPT (reported)
A father in a dispute with the canton of Basel-Stadt over an electricity-price bonus for his newborn daughter filed a 243-page appeal with 17 requests to Switzerland's Federal Supreme Court, about 28 times the length of the cantonal judgment he challenged, which ran to just under eight and a half pages. He told the court that drafting it had been possible only through his "above-average intelligence", his analytical skills and the intensive support of ChatGPT Plus. In judgment 2C_549/2026 of 28 September 2026 the presiding judge, sitting alone, found the brief excessively prolix, held that using artificial intelligence did not release him from the pleading requirements and was no free pass for sprawling briefs, refused him a period to shorten it and declined to hear the appeal. No court costs were imposed. blue News reported the judgment on 20 October 2026.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 23/10/2026
Feb 2026Event location unknownUnidentified image tool
In February 2026 federal deputy Rogério Correia posted on X a realistic image produced with artificial intelligence that, according to the Federal District court, inserted former president Jair Bolsonaro into a nonexistent scene and linked him to the banker Daniel Vorcaro, Banco Master and an alleged illicit scheme. Bolsonaro sued; a first-instance court ordered the deputy in May 2026 to pay 20,000 reais in moral damages and publish a retraction. On 8 October 2026 the First Civil Panel of the Federal District and Territories Court of Justice (TJDFT) unanimously dismissed the deputy's appeal, holding that parliamentary immunity does not cover a realistic AI image of a nonexistent event presented without a clear warning, and that the association harmed Bolsonaro's honour and image. The judgment was made public on 20 October 2026.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 22/10/2026
6 May 2026United StatesClaude Console (reported)
In the federal lawsuit over the Trump administration's mass layoffs (AFGE v. Trump, Northern District of California), a partner at Binnall Law Group filed an emergency motion on the night of 6 May 2026, in the Eastern District of Virginia, to quash a deposition subpoena directed at a former Homeland Security official the firm represents; that court transferred the motion to the Northern District of California. On 13 May Judge Susan Illston denied the motion. Her order says the court was troubled by multiple citations to case quotations that do not exist in the cases cited, that counsel was unaware of these quotations when questioned at the hearing and had no explanation for them, and it ordered counsel to explain the fabricated quotations in a declaration under penalty of perjury by 15 May. In that declaration the partner said he had used Claude Console, an enterprise AI platform, to create an initial draft, that an associate told him she had checked the citations, and that he did not double-check the quotations. He apologised to the court and opposing counsel and attached a corrected version. The firm's founding partner declared that firm policy prohibits using tools like Claude for legal drafting, that the error breached its policies and training, and that the firm had opened an internal investigation. On 20 Oct 2026 the court administratively closed the related miscellaneous case, saying the motion had been adjudicated and no further filings were anticipated. Neither order read mentions a sanction, and whether one was imposed is not established.
Core concern Low reported severity Internal Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 3 underlying accounts · Added 18/10/2026
21 Nov 2025United StatesUnidentified AI drafting tool
On 25 September 2026 a judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a defence motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against a California-barred lawyer admitted for one case (pro hac vice) to represent the plaintiff. The court found that an opposition the lawyer filed on 21 November 2025 was replete with inaccurate citations, including a quotation attributed to a case with a fictitious Westlaw citation, and that later oppositions cited a non-existent case. In response to the court's order to show cause, the lawyer admitted using AI to draft the first opposition and explained a belief that the enterprise-level AI software in use did not hallucinate cases. The court revoked the lawyer's pro hac vice admission and ordered the lawyer's firm to pay the defendants' reasonable fees and costs, capped at $10,000. The order does not name the AI product.
Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 16/10/2026
5 Feb 2026 to 9 Oct 2026United StatesvLex, Paxton AI and NotebookLM (reported)
In a federal trademark suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the court on 5 February 2026 struck a company defendant's motion papers and entered default judgment against it as a sanction on its lawyer, after his filings repeatedly cited nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations. The lawyer said he had found and cite-checked cases with AI tools (vLex and Paxton AI) and used NotebookLM to review a later submission; the court rejected his explanations and found he acted in bad faith. On 9 October 2026 the court described the citations as produced by generative AI and ordered the lawyer to pay $38,877.59 in fees and costs to the firm of a co-defendant's former lawyer, who had reported the false citations to the court.
Core + contextual relations Medium reported severity
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 16/10/2026
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
7 May 2025 to 23 Jul 2025Event location unknownChatGPT
In an incarcerated man's lawsuit against Alabama prison officials in the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, two motions filed in May 2025 for the defence of a former Alabama corrections commissioner contained five citations that did not exist or did not support the propositions cited. Lawyers of the Butler Snow firm, which the state retains to defend its prisons, told the court that a partner had obtained the citations from ChatGPT and had not verified them. On 23 July 2025 Judge Anna M. Manasco publicly reprimanded three of the firm's lawyers, disqualified them from the case and referred the matter to the Alabama State Bar, and ordered them to give the order to clients, opposing counsel and judges in all their pending cases. She declined to suspend them and released the firm and two other lawyers without sanction.
Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 15/10/2026
Event date unknownArgentinaChatGPT (reported)
Argentina's Gendarmería Nacional said on 13 October 2026 that its investigators in Presidencia Roque Sáenz Peña, Chaco, under the direction of the federal prosecutor there, opened a criminal investigation after an alert from the US FBI. According to the release, the alert warned of a user in the town who, in consultations on ChatGPT, claimed to have weapons, explosives and ammunition and a detailed plan for a mass shooting at local educational establishments; the release's opening paragraph says the two people involved used ChatGPT to consult and obtain a specific plan for an attack. Gendarmes searched a home on a federal court order, seized notebooks with handwritten plans for the attack, bladed weapons and tools, a fuel can, a book with Nazi symbols, cash and computers, and detained two adults on the judge's order. Infobae, relaying the official information, reports that the target was a university in Corrientes. The accusations are allegations, and what ChatGPT replied is not reported.
Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 14/10/2026
25 Feb 2025 to 7 Jul 2025Event location unknownUnidentified AI drafting tool
In the defamation case Coomer v. Lindell in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, a brief that lawyers for Mike Lindell and MyPillow filed on 25 February 2025 contained nearly thirty defective citations, including citations of cases that do not exist. At a conference on 21 April 2025 lead counsel Christopher Kachouroff told Judge Nina Y. Wang that he had drafted the motion and then 'ran it through AI' and had not personally checked the citations. Counsel later said a wrong draft had been filed by mistake; the court was not persuaded. On 7 July 2025 the court found that he and co-counsel Jennifer DeMaster had violated Rule 11 and fined each $3,000 (Kachouroff jointly with his law firm). The court did not sanction Lindell or his companies.
Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 14/10/2026
1 Sept 2026Event location unknownUnidentified AI drafting tool
In a pending appeal against a decision of Austria's data protection authority, the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) found that the appellant had filed hundreds of pages of statements and attachments within less than four months that were obviously created exclusively with large-language-model text programs and not labelled as AI-generated. In a decision of 1 September 2026 the court imposed a EUR 200 penalty for wanton use of the court, holding that the AI-assisted filings repeated the same complaints, brought no new facts or evidence and ignored the EU labelling duty for AI-generated content. The court announced it as the first such penalty for AI submissions. The appellant is anonymised and the appellant's response is not reported.
Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 13/10/2026
23 Jul 2026 to 31 Jul 2026IndiaUnidentified video tool
In late July 2026 a 44-to-47-second video circulated on social media in which Delhi Police Deputy Commissioner Sumit Jha appeared to announce that he was resigning "immediately" because the government had pressured him to implicate students protesting with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) on false charges. The fact-checkers Alt News and BOOM traced the frames to a genuine Delhi Police video of 23 July in which the officer warned about Pakistan-based social media handles spreading misinformation. BOOM found a mismatch between the audio and his lip movements and said Deepfake O Meter tools flagged the clip as AI-generated. Alt News reported a 67% likelihood of AI generation from Detectvideo.AI. Delhi Police posted a fact check calling the video "completely fake and AI generated", and the Hindustan Times reports that the Press Information Bureau also said it was AI-generated. After a member of the BJP social media team saw the video in a post by a Congress leader on 31 July, Maharashtra Cyber Police registered an FIR against unknown persons for public mischief and cheating by personation. The officer is named because he is a senior public official depicted in his official role and the fact checks name him; no statement from him is reported.
Core concern Low reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources · Added 11/10/2026
Event date unknownBrazilUnidentified video tool
The Civil Police of Brazil's Federal District (PCDF) say a criminal group manipulated the image and voice of TV presenter Marcos Mion with artificial intelligence in fraudulent videos promoting fake discounts at the Outback restaurant chain. According to the police, people who clicked the advertisements were sent to cloned websites and paid for discount vouchers that were never delivered. In January 2025 the police's first phase of Operation VoiceOver arrested three suspects; outlets relaying the police reported dozens of victims and 27 complaints in four days. A second phase on 9 May 2025 arrested a man in Santa Helena de Goiás who, police say, built and maintained the cloned sites and confessed his role. Every account relays the police; no outlet examined the videos, no tool is named and no individual victim or total loss is described.
Core concern Medium reported severity Criminal Charges
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 5 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 11/10/2026
23 Dec 2025 to 28 Apr 2026United StatesUnidentified AI drafting tool
In December 2025 an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina filed a response brief for the Department of Defense in a self-represented veteran's lawsuit over health-insurance coverage. The plaintiff identified fabricated quotations and misdescribed case holdings in it. The attorney first attributed the errors to an unfinalized draft filed by mistake. On 2 March 2026 Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. At the 10 March hearing the attorney, Rudy Renfer, said under oath that he had accidentally overwritten his draft, panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft the brief, and had not verified the cases it cited; he said he had resigned after 17 years in the office, and Courthouse News reported he was terminated the next day. On 28 April 2026 the court issued a public reprimand instead of a fine, writing that his reputation was in tatters and that his job loss already exceeded the usual fines.
Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 5 sources, 4 underlying accounts · Added 09/10/2026