25 May 2025IsraelUnidentified AI tool
In May 2025 the Ramat Gan municipality in Israel refused a request that a special-education pupil be given school transport from his father's home, citing an Education Ministry director-general circular and quotations from recent rulings. The father's lawyer could not find the circular, and the Education Ministry said it did not know it. After the father petitioned the Tel Aviv District Court, the municipality agreed in July 2025 to restore the transport but again filed invented quotations, and the district court refused costs. On appeal, the Supreme Court (Deputy President Noam Sohlberg, ruling published 22 March 2026) held that the documents left no doubt that the municipality had used artificial intelligence and that its decision, at least as presented to the pupil, clearly rested on uncontrolled AI use. It ordered the municipality to pay 30,000 shekels in costs.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Involving minors
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources · Added 27/10/2026
Nov 2025ChinaUnidentified image tool
Police in Yangpu district, Shanghai, say a customer extorted restaurants with medical records he had forged using AI software; Xinhua dates his first successful claim to November 2025. In the police account (Shangguan News, 26 February 2026) he claimed to have fallen ill after eating at a barbecue restaurant, showed a hospital visit record and medical invoice, and demanded 2,000 yuan in medical costs, threatening complaints and publicity; the restaurant paid. Police checked with other diners and the hospital, found he had no hospital record and the materials were forged, and say he confessed to using AI software to alter images of other people's medical records, replacing the name, date and amount. Police say he succeeded twice and failed twice, obtaining 2,500 yuan, and that he also filed complaints to market regulators with the forged material to pressure the restaurants. According to Xinhua's June report and the Procuratorate Daily, the Yangpu District People's Court convicted him of extortion and sentenced him to four months' criminal detention, suspended for four months, and a 2,000 yuan fine.
Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Criminal Charges
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources · Added 17/10/2026
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
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
2025United StatesUnidentified image tool (suspected)
The Guardian reported on 2 August 2025 that a London-based academic who rented a Manhattan apartment through Airbnb in 2025 was accused by the host of more than 12,000 pounds of damage, supported by photos including a cracked coffee table. She says differences between two photos of the table show they were digitally manipulated or AI-generated. Airbnb first told her to reimburse 5,314 pounds after reviewing the photos, then, five days after Guardian Money asked about the case, accepted her appeal, credited 500 pounds and, after she refused an 854-pound offer, refunded her booking cost of 4,269 pounds, and the host's negative review of her was taken down. Airbnb apologised. Airbnb told the host it could not verify the images he submitted and warned him. The host did not respond to the Guardian. No source establishes that AI was used.
Contextual tracker case Low reported severity
AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 2 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
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
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