Event date unknownEvent location unknownUnidentified video tool
Al-Sharq reported on 25 June 2026, in an article quoting the woman's lawyers, that the Investment and Trade Court, in what the paper called the first case of its kind, ordered a news channel to compensate a woman whose personal photos and video clips it had processed with artificial intelligence, without her permission, to create a virtual character presented as a digital news presenter under an assumed name. The channel had launched the presenter with programmes, promotional material and a press conference, and removed the material after the woman's lawyer sent a legal warning. She also argued that news delivered by the character conflicted with her own convictions, which attributed views to her falsely. A court-appointed intellectual-property expert found the AI output to be an independent work, but the court held that the channel had exploited her images and simulated her with AI, violating her rights to her image and privacy. The appeal court reduced the award from 700,000 to 100,000 Qatari riyals, and the Court of Cassation declined the channel's further appeal, making the judgment final. The woman and the channel are not named, and the dates of the broadcasts and rulings are not given.
Core concern Medium reported severity Lawsuit Settled
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 31/10/2026
2024Event location unknownNotebookLM
Former NPR Morning Edition co-host David Greene alleges that the default male AI host voice in Google's NotebookLM Audio Overviews, a feature introduced in September 2024 that turns uploaded documents into podcast-style conversations, imitates his voice and speaking habits and was used to market the product without his permission. He told NPR that in fall 2024 friends and colleagues messaged him that it sounded like him, and that listening to it felt creepy. He sued Google in Santa Clara County Superior Court on 23 January 2026; the complaint cites listeners and a forensic voice-recognition firm. Google calls the allegation baseless and says it hired a professional actor and built the voice around him. In October 2026 Judge Shella Deen overruled Google's demurrer to all four causes of action, while stating that whether the voice was made from Greene's recordings or from another source that resembles him is a factual question still to be decided.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 30/10/2026
Event date unknownUnited StatesA2E (reported)
On 28 October 2026 Florida's attorney general filed a civil complaint in Sarasota County against Rengstorff Consulting Ltd, operator of the A2E AI platform, alleging that its nudification and face-swap tools let users make sexual images of non-consenting people, including children, without meaningful monitoring or reporting. The complaint cites a Tampa case: police arrested a man on 8 June 2026, and the complaint says he admitted using A2E's face-swap tool to make nudified images of eight people, including his two young stepchildren. WFLA reported on 25 June 2026 that detectives believed images were AI-generated, found searches for AI face-swap tools and charged him with six counts of generating altered sexual depictions without consent alongside child sexual abuse material charges. The complaint also cites a Tallahassee arrest in April 2026 in which some images carried an A2E watermark. The attorney general seeks an injunction, disgorgement and civil penalties. The allegations are untested. In an email to the Florida Phoenix reported on 30 October 2026, A2E said it was consulting its legal team, had always treated child sexual abuse material very seriously and had been cooperating with law enforcement to detect and prevent it.
Core concern High reported severity Involving minors Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 3 underlying accounts · Added 30/10/2026
Event date unknownChinaUnidentified voice-cloning tool
The Binjiang District People's Court in Hangzhou ruled that a culture company infringed a former employee's voice rights when it trained an AI on recordings the employee had made at its request and used the synthesised voice to dub a virtual character, according to the court's bulletin as reported by China Youth Daily and Cover News on 25 June 2026. The employee had worked as a 'virtual performer' doing livestreams and videos. In August 2023 the company, citing internal testing, had the employee record material for a voice and AI training project without signing a formal agreement and without clearly answering the employee's requests about terms and a licence fee. After leaving in September 2024, the employee found the AI-synthesised voice in use for the character in livestreams, shopping-centre displays and online product listings. The court found the AI-processed voice so close to the employee's intonation and speaking style that ordinary listeners could identify the person, held that the company's copyright in the work recordings did not extend to personality rights, and ordered it to stop, pay 20,000 yuan for economic loss and issue a written apology. Neither side appealed.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 30/10/2026
2024United StatesGaggle
The Lawrence, Kansas, school district began using Gaggle, a student-monitoring service, on school accounts in November 2023. A federal lawsuit filed on 1 August 2025 by current and former students alleges that Gaggle, which the complaint says operates through artificial intelligence that flags items for review by Gaggle moderators, flagged original photography assignments uploaded by art and photography students. According to the complaint, in early 2024 security officers took students out of class to the front office of a Lawrence high school, where administrators told them their images had been flagged by Gaggle for indecent exposure and child pornography; an assistant principal accused a photography student of having such material, refused to let her view the images, and questioned her about them from memory, and administrators admitted they had not seen the flagged content. The student told them she had uploaded that day a photography assignment showing a fully clothed friend; the complaint says the flagged content consisted of original photographs taken for class assignments, that students found their photographs removed from their school accounts only by comparing them with personal backups, that one student had to explain each image in her portfolio to district staff and became concerned that future assignments would bring more scrutiny, and that the district restored the images only after months of advocacy. The Associated Press, in reporting that included an analysis of the district's Gaggle alert records, said the photos had been automatically deleted and that students with backups showed it was a false alarm, and that district officials said they later adjusted the software's settings to reduce false alerts. On 8 April 2026 the federal court dismissed, on qualified immunity, the claims against the assistant principal and another official, saying it had found no law establishing that a school official cannot rely on an AI surveillance flag to call in a student for questioning; other claims against the district continue, and the docket shows depositions noticed in October 2026.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 5 sources · Added 27/10/2026
Event date unknownEvent location unknownUnidentified video tool
Chinese media reports of September and October 2026 describe a civil public-interest suit that the Hangzhou procuratorate brought against two men in the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court in Zhejiang. According to the court as reported by CCTV News, the two took other people's ID-card photos supplied by an upstream trade in personal data and used an overseas face-swap website to turn them into AI-generated moving videos that nodded, blinked and shook their heads, then fed the videos through a virtual-camera app so that a shopping platform's face liveness check accepted them, letting the men log into other people's accounts. The prosecution said they entered nearly 30 accounts on one shopping platform and took users' delivery addresses and shopping-cart data, which were passed on for sale, and used the same AI technique to verify 20 chat and dating accounts under other people's identities for sale. CCTV also reports a second, non-AI method the men used to enter accounts and does not say how many of the accounts each method reached. After police caught them, the two stopped, returned 5,857 yuan in illegal gains and admitted the conduct, and prosecutors decided not to charge them criminally. In court they admitted abusing AI to infringe other people's personal information and apologised; Chao News reports that they also argued that the face information was generated automatically by AI. The court found that they had abused AI to forge liveness verification and steal and resell user data, and ordered a public apology and public-interest damages equal to their gains. A 26 October report, citing an earlier Chao News report, dates the hearing and first-instance judgment to 4 September 2026.
Core concern Medium reported severity Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources · Added 27/10/2026
Event date unknownBrazilMicrosoft text-to-speech (reported)
A professional voice actor sued a São Paulo shopping centre, saying it used the actor's voice without authorisation in a marketing campaign shown on YouTube, and claimed lost earnings and moral damages. The centre answered that the voice was not the actor's but a synthetic voice produced with Microsoft's text-to-speech service, available to the public. According to the legal news site ConJur, a judge of the 18th Civil Court accepted that the voice was produced synthetically and dismissed the claim; on appeal the actor argued that a notarised record attesting to the similarity of the voices had never been assessed. The 6th Private Law Chamber of the São Paulo Court of Justice annulled that judgment for curtailment of the defence, holding that the use of AI does not by itself rule out misuse of third parties' rights, and sent the case back for evidence on how the campaign voice was generated and how similar it is to the actor's. The court docket shows the case back at first instance at the court-expert stage in 2025; no ruling on the merits is reported. Whether the AI voice reproduces the actor's voice is disputed.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution disputed · 2 sources · Added 26/10/2026
Jun 2024Event location unknownUnidentified face-swap and voice-synthesis tool
A CCTV News report of 29 September 2026 says the Hangzhou Internet Court in Zhejiang recently concluded a portrait-rights case brought by a beauty blogger. According to the report, from June 2024 an online skincare-sales company, without the blogger's consent, took short videos and livestream footage the blogger had published and used AI synthesis to make more than 30 fake videos in which the blogger appeared to promote its products. The court found that the company had used AI face swap and the recombination of image and sound tracks to fabricate the videos for commercial gain, infringing the blogger's portrait rights. In court the company acknowledged that it had synthesised and published the videos without the blogger's authorisation, said staff had made them out of fun and curiosity, and said it had taken them all down after receiving the lawsuit papers. The court ordered the company to pay 15,000 yuan for economic loss and the costs of protecting the blogger's rights and 5,000 yuan in compensation for emotional distress, and to publish an apology prominently on the platform concerned for at least 30 days. The blogger's claim that the products sold more than 100,000 orders was not accepted as proof of loss or profit.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 26/10/2026
13 Apr 2024BrazilUnidentified facial recognition system
During the half-time interval of the Sergipe state football championship final at the Batistão stadium in Aracaju on 13 April 2024, military police took a personal trainer from the stands to a police room after the stadium's facial recognition system flagged him as a man with an open arrest warrant; he was searched and questioned and released once police confirmed he was not the person sought (G1, his lawyer and the military police). Sergipe's governor publicly regretted 'the failure of the facial recognition tool' and suspended its use until a new protocol was adopted. In June 2024 the man sued the state for 550,000 reais in moral damages; the state argued that the Aracaju municipality, not the state, had contracted the system. In December 2025 the judge rejected that preliminary objection, according to Mangue Jornalismo, which read the court file. No final judgment is reported.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 24/10/2026
Apr 2025ChinaUnidentified video tool
On 20 March 2026 the Beijing Internet Court announced a portrait-rights judgment over an online short drama in which, it found, the production company used deep-synthesis (AI face-swap) technology to generate an image highly similar to a well-known actress, according to Beijing Daily and a Sina Finance report drawing on it. In April 2025 internet users had questioned whether the drama had face-swapped a performer into the actress, and many believed she had appeared in it. The court found that two segments of the 44-episode, roughly 90-minute drama used AI face-swapping and that the face resembled the actress closely enough for the public to identify her. The maker argued that the image was generated by AI without any prompt relating to her and could not reproduce its process in court. The court held the maker liable for portrait-rights infringement and the broadcaster liable for failing to review the content, and ordered both to post written apologies on their video accounts and pay economic damages; neither appealed. The amount is not reported in the sources read.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 24/10/2026
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
11 Mar 2026Event location unknownUnidentified OpenAI model (reported)
A Head of Customer Service Platform at Apertum Online Ltd, a consumer internet company whose customer-service system passed customer request forms to a large language model, was dismissed on 11 March 2026 during his probation, two months after starting. According to an employment tribunal decision of 23 April 2026, he had told his manager in February that customers' personal data was being sent to OpenAI within support tickets and set out his concerns in a document; the chief technical officer called the document pure AI slop in a chat and said he would fire him. The employer says it dismissed him for underperformance, citing his reliance on AI to generate documents; he says he was dismissed for his disclosures. The judge refused interim relief, finding he had not shown a pretty good chance of success on the reason for dismissal while noting a significant coincidence in timing. No findings of fact were made, and the claim awaits a final hearing.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution disputed · 1 source · Added 22/10/2026
Event date unknownEvent location unknownUnidentified image tool
The Beijing Internet Court reported in August 2025 that two members of a photography WeChat group had gone to court after one used AI software, without consent, to turn the other's profile portrait photo into revealingly dressed cartoon-style images and posted them in the group. According to the court, the claimant objected several times, but the defendant kept using the software to make images with exposed bodies and deformed limbs, including wooden legs and three arms, and sent them to the claimant privately. The defendant argued the images were not identifiable and were generated automatically by AI. The court found that group members could identify the claimant, that posting the images in the group infringed the claimant's portrait and reputation rights, and that the private messages infringed the claimant's general personality rights. It ordered an apology and compensation for mental harm.
Core concern Medium reported severity Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 22/10/2026
May 2023ChinaUnidentified voice-cloning tool
According to the Beijing courts' case digest and reports of the April 2024 judgment, a voice actress found in May 2023 that works using her voice were circulating widely on several well-known apps. The court found that a software company had used only one of her sound recordings, supplied by a media company that held the recording rights, to make a text-to-speech product with AI and other techniques, and sold it on a cloud-service platform; an app operator then called the product through an interface for use on its own platform, where the voice was shown as played 3,256,728,530 times. The authorisation document had not been signed by her. On 23 April 2024 the Beijing Internet Court held that her voice rights extend to an identifiable AI-synthesised voice, ordered the app operator and the software company to apologise in writing, and ordered the media company and the software company to pay her 250,000 yuan for economic loss. It rejected her claim for mental-harm damages. Neither side appealed.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 22/10/2026
2025RussiaDeepSeek
A Moscow district court upheld an engineering company's dismissal of its head of sales for disclosing trade secrets, according to RAPSI and Pravo.ru reports of 27 July 2026. The grounds included uploading protected internal reports to the Chinese chatbot DeepSeek, forwarding company documents to her personal email and disclosing strategic information to a supplier. The court held that uploading trade secrets to DeepSeek is in itself a disclosure. She had sought a dismissal by mutual agreement and a contractual severance payment of 5 million roubles. The court rejected both, annulled a separate reprimand and awarded her compensation for moral harm. The decision was not yet final.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 19/10/2026
2025Event location unknownUnidentified image tool
A civil court in Goiânia, Brazil (32ª Vara Cível) ordered Telegram in a judgment signed on 6 October 2026 to pay R$10,000 in moral damages to a woman whose fake intimate images, created with artificial intelligence, were shared on the platform. According to the judgment as reported by Portal 6 (citing the legal news site Rota Jurídica) and O Popular, Telegram users used AI tools to alter photos that she and her sisters had posted on social media into nude and sexual images, and shared them without consent in a group of more than 120 participants with offensive sexual comments. She reported the group to Telegram through its support channels, including a notification on 29 July 2025, and received no reply; the group had 98 participants then and at least 123 a month later. The court held Telegram liable because it did not remove the posts after notification, ordered removal of the material, measures to block identical or similar copies, and disclosure of data identifying the group's creators and users. Telegram did not contest the case and did not answer O Popular.
Core concern Medium reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 19/10/2026
2024Event location unknownUnidentified voice-cloning tool
According to the Beijing Internet Court's account, released on 16 October 2026 among typical cases on online infringement involving older people, a culture company selling family parenting books commissioned a livestream sales host in 2024 to make promotional short videos. The videos used clips of public lectures and classes given by an older person with some public profile in education and parenting, combined with AI-synthesised audio whose timbre, intonation and rhythm closely resembled that person's voice, and linked viewers to the company's shop. Neither the images nor the audio had been authorised. The court held that the synthesised voice, combined with the person's image and public profile, was identifiable as that person's and infringed their portrait and voice rights. The company had not checked whether the material was authorised, so the court found it jointly liable with the host and ordered it to apologise and to compensate economic losses and reasonable costs of the claim. The amounts, the judgment date and the tool are not reported.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 17/10/2026
Aug 2026Event location unknownGoogle AI Mode
In late August 2026 a colleague told a German physician, until that summer a chief physician at a hospital, that searching his name with the word for suspension in Google's AI Mode produced what read like a factual report: that he had been suspended and dismissed and had received a suspended sentence for sexual coercion. According to legal news site beck-aktuell, none of it concerned him; the AI had apparently attached facts about another former senior employee of the same hospital to his name, and the newspaper articles it linked as sources did not name him. Google said it had reviewed his complaint and would take no action, and a lawyer's warning letter also failed. On 24 September 2026 the Aachen Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction (8 O 268/26) barring Google Ireland Limited from spreading the claims through AI Mode, finding that they violated his personality rights and that Google is responsible for its AI search answers.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 15/10/2026
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