30 Sept 2024Event location unknownBaidu AI smart answer
A practising lawyer in Nanjing, China, found in September 2024 that Baidu search's 'AI smart answer' (AI 智能回答) feature, asked how many years he had been sentenced to, answered that he had been sentenced to three years in prison for a criminal offence and showed his photograph in a lawyer's robe. According to the first-instance judgment as quoted in the press, the answer was produced on 30 September 2024. The lawyer says he complained repeatedly to Baidu by letter, hotline and email without the content being fully removed, and he sued. The Jiangbei New Area People's Court in Nanjing found that Baidu had combined text and his picture through AI into false, disparaging content aimed at him, that Baidu was at fault, and that this was defamation; it ordered a written apology and rejected his claims for lost income and emotional damages for lack of evidence. Baidu argued that AI hallucinations could not be foreseen. The Nanjing Intermediate People's Court dismissed Baidu's appeal on 12 March 2026. The lawyer applied for enforcement when no apology came, and in September 2026 said he had received Baidu's written apology; Baidu has applied for a retrial.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 22/10/2026
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. On 13 March 2026 the Chubut Superior Court of Justice, ruling on a complaint appeal by the case's prosecutors, revoked the annulment, holding that a judge's use of support tools, technological or not, does not by itself invalidate a judgment without a concrete prejudice to the parties, and returned the case to the Esquel chamber, with a different composition, to hear the defence's appeal against the conviction (Revista Quórum, Clarín, Diario Judicial).
Contextual tracker case Low reported severity
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 6 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 29/09/2026
Event date unknownBrazilUnidentified facial recognition system
The Espírito Santo Civil Police (Defa, the fraud and forgery unit) said a 27-year-old man was arrested on a warrant in Serra on 22 September 2026, suspected of defrauding a personal trainer of more than R$100,000. According to the police, the suspect offered a car in exchange for the victim's motorcycle; during the negotiation he persuaded the victim to perform a facial-recognition procedure, saying it was needed to transfer the car's ownership; the biometric was later used to contract a vehicle financing in the victim's name without his authorisation, and weeks after the exchange the victim discovered that the car he had received did not belong to the suspect and was a rental. The loss, combining the motorcycle and the fraudulently contracted financing, exceeded R$100,000. The suspect, who police say had been arrested in São Paulo in July 2025 in a 'love scam' case, was taken to the Centro de Triagem at the Rodrigo Figueiredo da Rosa prison complex and remains at the disposal of the courts. The financing provider and the facial-recognition system are not identified, and the reports do not say how the captured biometric was used to pass the financing.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Criminal Charges
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 26/09/2026
24 Jul 2026 to 26 Jul 2026IndiaUnidentified facial recognition system
In an affidavit of 17 August 2026 before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi Police said its Facial Recognition System (FRS) had identified 2,873 people with criminal antecedents at the Jantar Mantar protests of 20 to 26 July 2026 (2,402 through its 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and 471 through other criminal records). On 1 September the Court quashed the FIRs against the student protesters but let the police proceed against the 2,873; the police say any action will follow field verification. The Indian Express checked the 205 listed people facing murder, attempted-murder, rape or child-sexual-offence charges against police, prison and court records and found that at least 25 of them (17 accused of murder, four of rape (two or three under POCSO; the Express's narrative and its list differ), four of attempted murder) were lodged in Delhi's Tihar, Mandoli or Rohini prisons when the system logged them at the protest site with timestamps on 24, 25 and 26 July; some had been in custody for years. Delhi Police told the newspaper that further verification of the 2,873 was pending and, in its affidavit, that no action is taken solely on a facial-recognition result and that field verification follows each match. The police disclosed in 2022, in reply to a Right to Information request, that it treats a match with an 80 per cent similarity score as positive. Whether any of the 25 has since been named in the fresh FIR or visited for verification is not reported.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 24/09/2026
1 Oct 2024 to 1 Aug 2025United StatesUnidentified facial recognition system
Javier Lorenzano Nunez was arrested in October 2024 for the 1998 murder of Sarah Carr after investigators ran the old suspect's MVD photo through facial recognition databases, got 250 possible matches and zeroed in on him — with Phoenix police publicizing the arrest in a press release and a special video. Charges were dismissed without prejudice in August 2025 after forensic evidence, including DNA and fingerprints, excluded him. His lawsuit alleges Phoenix police knew from a 2017 fingerprint analysis that his prints did not match, and ignored a 2007 Puerto Rico lead on the original suspect with the same name, date of birth and social security number. He spent nearly a year in jail. The federal suit against the Phoenix Police Department and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office alleges gross negligence, false arrest, false imprisonment and defamation.
Contextual tracker case High reported severity Lawsuit Filed
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources · Added 15/09/2026