20 Mar 2025 to 14 Nov 2025Event location unknownUnidentified image tool
The Amsterdam District Court said in March 2026 that a 34-year-old man was suspected of opening 47 bank accounts in other people's names between 20 March and 14 November 2025 by using deepfake technology to mislead a bank's identity-verification system. At the hearing on 17 March 2026, the prosecution said he had beaten ABN AMRO's app check, which compares a face scan with the photo on an identity document, by replacing ID photos with his own and by adjusting his own face photos to resemble the ID photos; the judge noted that a selfie submitted with one woman's identity document showed features of her passport photo. The prosecution said identity documents of the victims in whose names accounts were opened were found on his phone. The man denied knowing of the fraud before late September 2025, and the court reopened the investigation on 31 March to examine his phone data. According to AT5, on 17 June 2026 the court sentenced him to two and a half years in prison, six months of it suspended, and ordered him to pay 13,000 euros to ABN AMRO; AT5 reports that he pasted his victims' facial features onto his own face with AI and that some of the accounts were used for bank-helpdesk fraud and cash withdrawals.
Core concern Medium reported severity Criminal Charges
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources · 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
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
23 Jun 2025NetherlandsChatGPT
On 23 June 2025 a recruitment agency summarily dismissed a recruitment consultant it had employed since January 2024, giving seven grounds in its dismissal letter. One ground, misuse of company resources and an integrity breach, concerned questions he had put to ChatGPT on his work laptop about how to obtain a severance payment from the employer: the employer said he made defamatory statements about it there and breached his duty of confidentiality with the information he entered. He did not dispute the queries. In a decision given on 27 February 2026, the sub-district judge of the Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant ruled the dismissal invalid, because the employer had not established another ground and the seven grounds formed a single composite reason. On the ChatGPT ground the judge found that private use of the laptop had not been forbidden, that he had shared only information about his employment relationship and no company secrets, and that this was culpable to a limited extent. In a final decision of 22 May 2026 the court awarded him a transition payment of 2,976.04 euros gross, fixed damages of 4,565.70 euros gross and costs, but refused the 25,000 euros of fair compensation he sought, weighing his limited income loss and his own culpable conduct, which it listed as including his sharing of information about the employment relationship. His fixed-term contract would have ended on 1 August 2025, when he started a new job.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 25/10/2026
Nov 2025South KoreaUnidentified image tool
The Seoul Southern District Court on 11 September 2026 fined a male official in his fifties at a Seoul district office a total of 6 million won for making and posting false images and for defamation, according to Korean reports of the ruling. Under the charges, in November 2025 he took a photo of a female colleague in his department from the office's organisation chart, used generative AI to composite it into pictures that made them look like a couple, and posted them four times on his social media profile. The judge cited the colleague's statement that she felt shame, insult and disgust, and that rumours had spread at work. Police had initially found no offence before the case was sent back to prosecutors. Both he and the prosecution appealed, and the Seoul city personnel committee voted to dismiss him.
Core concern Medium reported severity Criminal Charges
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 22/10/2026
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
May 2025Event location unknownUnidentified video tool
In June 2025 the Stockholm police region warned that since the end of May it had received several complaints from people defrauded through social media adverts with AI-generated videos depicting doctors, who appeared to give advice and recommend medicines or vitamins. According to the police, viewers who followed the adverts to fraudulent websites were induced to enter card details, after which a considerably larger sum was charged and the details were stolen. Dagens Nyheter reported that the doctors used included the former state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell and the professor Agnes Wold, who told the paper of being furious. In July 2025 the Public Health Agency of Sweden said fake Facebook films imitating its former state epidemiologist were advertising products for diabetes or asthma, that it had reported them to the police and had asked Meta to remove them; he said it was sad that fraudsters were exploiting vulnerable people. Dagens Nyheter, as relayed by Omni, reported that the investigations were closed because the offences were judged to have been committed abroad. The number of defrauded people and their losses are not stated, and the police do not say how the AI generation was established.
Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 6 sources, 4 underlying accounts · Added 16/10/2026
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
Jun 2025Event location unknownUnidentified image tool
A Bucks County, Pennsylvania, judge sentenced a man to state prison on 14 October 2026 after he pleaded guilty to child sexual abuse material and theft charges. According to court documents and prosecutors, detectives who began investigating him in June 2025 found AI-generated deepfake nude images of a teenage girl he knew, a neighbor, on his devices; her face had been placed on other bodies. The day after the arrest he was recorded entering her family's home and stealing her underwear. Her father described the family's distress in court, and the Inquirer reports that she is struggling at school, taking antidepressants and in therapy. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports a sentence of seven to 10 years. The Bucks County Courier Times gave seven to 12 years in its first report and seven to 20 years after republishing it to update the sentence length. Neither report names the AI tool.
Core concern High reported severity Involving minors Criminal Charges
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 15/10/2026
Jun 2025Event location unknownLegal Genius (reported)
In an urgent application by Northbound Processing against the South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator, Acting Judge DJ Smit of the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, found while preparing judgment that two cases cited in the applicant's heads of argument did not exist. According to ITWeb, which saw the court documents, junior counsel first said a wrong version had been filed, a corrected version was found to contain two further incorrect citations, and on the court's direct inquiry junior counsel acknowledged that the citations likely originated from an AI tool called Legal Genius, used under deadline pressure. The judge accepted the legal team's apologies and found no intent to deceive, but referred the conduct of the applicant's legal practitioners to the Legal Practice Council for investigation (June 2025). The applicant obtained the relief it sought.
Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 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
Aug 2025South KoreaUnidentified image tool
The Busan Eastern District branch of the prosecutors' office in South Korea announced on 11 February 2026 that it had indicted a man under detention on 6 February for fraud, forging and using private documents, and obstructing official duties by deception. According to the prosecutors, from August to October 2025 he used AI to make fake images of a medical licensing examination certificate and of cryptocurrency holdings, posed as a doctor and businessman with billions of won in assets, and took about 320 million won from victims for supposed cryptocurrency, cruise-ship and medical-centre investments. When police sought his arrest in December 2025, he gave the warrant judge a bank balance certificate showing about 904 million won, which prosecutors say he made by uploading his real certificate to an AI platform and asking it to change the balance; his real balance was 23 won. The judge refused the warrant. Prosecutors later found the certificate was forged and obtained a new warrant. The accused and the victims are not named here.
Core concern High reported severity Criminal Charges
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 13/10/2026
Apr 2025Puerto RicoUnidentified legal research tool (suspected)
In an antitrust lawsuit that the Puerto Rico Soccer League brought against FIFA, CONCACAF and Puerto Rican football officials, Chief U.S. District Judge Raúl Arias-Marxuach found dozens of inaccurate or nonexistent legal citations across four filings by the league's two attorneys. According to Law Commentary, he said the errors bore hallmarks of generative AI and found that the lawyers violated Rule 11 by failing to reasonably verify the authorities they cited. Lawyer Monthly reports that the sanctions were decided in April 2025 and that an order of 23 September 2025 set the penalty at $24,492.10, payable to FIFA and the other defendants. Both lawyers have denied using artificial intelligence. In an October 2026 filing FIFA asked the court to dismiss the league's remaining claim because the sanction had not been paid. The lawyers proposed paying $1,000 a month, cited financial difficulties and an injury one of them suffered in March 2026, and argued that dismissal would punish their client for penalties imposed on them personally. The court had not ruled on the dismissal request when these reports were published.
AI relation unknown Low reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing
AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution disputed · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 13/10/2026
1 May 2025CanadaChatGPT
An Ontario lawyer relied, at a 1 May 2025 Superior Court hearing in an estate and family-law matter, on a factum citing cases that do not exist or do not support the propositions cited. The judge ordered her to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt, then withdrew the order on 20 May 2025 after she said her staff had used ChatGPT without her knowledge. On 30 September 2025 she told the court that she alone had prepared the factum with ChatGPT and that her earlier account was untrue; the court referred the matter to Ontario’s Attorney General for criminal contempt proceedings in December 2025. In July 2026 the Law Society Tribunal suspended her licence for six months, finding she relied on AI-generated non-existent case law and lied about it. The account comes from legal-press and law-firm reports of the decisions; the criminal contempt case was still ongoing at the last report read.
Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 7 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 12/10/2026
26 Jun 2025 to 17 Nov 2025United KingdomUnidentified AI tool
Judicial review grounds lodged in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) on 26 June 2025 by a solicitors' firm cited four authorities that the judge could not find or that carried wrong citations and propositions. The firm's compliance officer, a solicitor whose name was on the claim form, said a junior fee-earner had drafted the grounds under his supervision; his written explanation named an outdated precedent, practitioner blogs and personal notes as the sources. After a Hamid hearing on 5 November 2025, the tribunal recorded that he accepted the fee-earner had relied on false citations generated by AI, and in a judgment promulgated on 17 November 2025 it referred him to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for the false citations and his failure to supervise. The tribunal said it does not matter how such errors come about. It also announced that the Upper Tribunal judicial review claim form now requires a statement of truth that cited authorities exist and support the propositions they are cited for.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 12/10/2026
Jan 2025ItalyUnidentified customer-service AI tool
In January 2025 Maersk Italia, the Genoa-based Italian arm of the Danish logistics group, dismissed four employees of its Customer Service department without warning, according to the regional transport unions Filt Cgil, Fit Cisl and Uiltrasporti, who called a one-day strike. The unions said the company had moved the work to Manila and had also replaced part of the tasks done by the Genoa staff with artificial intelligence. One of the four, a woman, sued, while the other three accepted a severance offer. Euronews reported on 30 April 2026 that the Genoa labour court had ordered her reinstatement with compensation for the months she went unpaid, finding the dismissal unlawful because the employer had not tried to redeploy her within the company. A legal commentary in Domani gives the judgment's date as 30 March 2026, while Euronews says the decision came on Thursday, the eve of 1 May. The unions that backed the case described it as the first Italian case in which judges ruled on a dismissal linked to AI, although the Domani commentary also cites a Rome ruling of November 2025 on an AI-related dismissal. The Domani commentary does not name the employer. No source describes the AI system or what it did, and Maersk's account of the dismissals was not found.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources · Added 11/10/2026
17 Sept 2025 to 21 Sept 2026United KingdomChatGPT
A published Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision issued on 21 September 2026 records that the grounds of appeal and skeleton argument in a Namibian national's protection appeal were produced by a paralegal at her then solicitors using ChatGPT. The tribunal recorded her counsel's acceptance that the grounds cited fake cases, quoted passages absent from those judgments and attributed to the First-tier judge sentences he never wrote, and itself called one purported quotation pure invention. The September 2025 error-of-law hearing was adjourned, and the appellant later withdrew three of her four original grounds. The tribunal allowed an amended version of her one surviving ground but found that it disclosed no error of law. It refused her permission to add two new grounds, holding that she should not be allowed to advance entirely new grounds, or replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, so long after the time limit, and in the alternative found those grounds without merit. It directed the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; the Law Society Gazette reported the decision on 8 October 2026.
Core + contextual relations Low reported severity
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 09/10/2026
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
Jan 2025Event location unknownUnidentified voice-cloning tool
Chinese outlets reported on 29 September 2026, citing the Shanghai courts, that the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court had concluded what it called Shanghai's first voice-rights case arising from AI-synthesised speech. According to the court's account, a voice actor who publishes work on an app learned from a friend in January 2025 that a company appeared to be using the voice actor's voice in an online user-acquisition promotion, judged the audio to be AI-synthesised, had it notarised and sued for 300,000 yuan. The company said the audio was generated by AI it had developed but that the training material could not be confirmed, and denied using the voice actor's voice. A forensic comparison rated about 90 percent of the measured features as fairly or highly similar. The first-instance court awarded 50,000 yuan and both sides appealed. The appeal court held that the company had put an identifiable synthetic voice to commercial use without consent, dismissed the appeals and upheld the award.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 05/10/2026
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