12 Oct 2026BrazilUnidentified AI tool
A labour court in Castro, Paraná (9th Region Labour Court), annulled a court-appointed expert's report after the employer, in a motion for clarification, reported a hidden sentence at the foot of a page instructing artificial intelligence to contest the report only superficially and not to question the files it cited, according to Diário de Justiça. The expert confirmed the text but said it came from teaching material about AI and was inserted by accident; the court's IT section concluded that it had been formatted deliberately to be invisible. The judge said AI had not been used to write the judgment and that the text did not directly influence it, but annulled the report, later submissions and the judgment, ordered a new examination by another expert without AI tools, fined the expert 5% of the value of the case for bad-faith litigation, cancelled the expert's fees and removed the expert from the court's register. The decision, dated 12 October 2026, can be challenged.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution disputed · 1 source · Added 30/10/2026
2026FinlandUnidentified AI tool
Humppila, a municipality of about 2,000 residents in Kanta-Häme, Finland, abolished its administrative director and technical director posts on the new mayor's proposal, which, according to Helsingin Sanomat as relayed by Maaseudun Tulevaisuus, covered 150,000 euros of the municipality's savings need; Yle reports that the two office holders were dismissed in spring 2026 and that the abolitions followed the municipality's need to improve its weak finances. Maaseudun Tulevaisuus, relaying an interview first published by Helsingin Sanomat, reports that according to the mayor both directors' tasks are now done with the help of AI, and quotes the mayor as saying the writing of new appendices to the administrative regulations was done with AI in a day. A municipal statement said the main aim of its reforms was not to increase AI use or shrink the administration but to secure services. The former administrative director told Iltalehti the abolition of the post was unlawful, saying the tasks have not ceased and that AI cannot bear official responsibility or form a ground for dismissal; the mayor says the process was lawful. According to the former director, the abolition was brought into the change negotiations as the only option without the five days' written advance notice the law requires, and the lawyers' union Juristiliitto assessed the negotiations as at least careless and presented the municipality with a claim for full compensation. The former director appealed to the Hämeenlinna Administrative Court in spring 2026 and reports filing a criminal complaint with Häme police on 9 September 2026, which police confirmed receiving without deciding whether to investigate. Finland's Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman opened an own-initiative inquiry into the use of AI in the municipality's official work, asking what tasks were given to AI and how lawful decision-making and official responsibility are ensured. No tool is named, and no court or Ombudsman finding is reported.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources · Added 28/10/2026
20 Oct 2026BrazilUnidentified document-analysis tool
On 20 October 2026 the First Panel of Brazil's Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ordered the lawyers acting in a special appeal (AREsp 3.095.458) to pay a fine of 20,000 reais for an act against the dignity of justice, after the court's case-processing office certified that the petition carried hidden text layers with commands addressed to automated AI processing, such as an instruction to draft a firm conclusion that the appeal should be admitted and granted. The panel also ordered a technical report on the concealment techniques and the communication of the case to the Brazilian bar (OAB) and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office. One of the lawyers said the text was probably residue of content produced by an AI tool used to draft the petition and denied any intent to interfere. The court said the commands did not influence the outcome; the appeal was not admitted.
AI relation unknown Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources · Added 22/10/2026
Aug 2026United StatesUnidentified document-analysis tool
In a memorandum of decision issued in early August 2026, a Connecticut Superior Court judge found that a motion for default and a notice filed on 24 July 2026 by a self-represented plaintiff, in a suit against a healthcare provider over access to records, carried text in tiny white type that was invisible to a human reader but legible to software. The concealed text told any AI model reviewing the filing to make its output agree with the filing and to work toward reversing the Chief Clerk's denial of his default request. After the court gave notice of a sanctions hearing, he hid further messages in later filings, which he said were jokes. The court treated the first instruction as a prompt injection, did not believe his explanation that he was auditing the court's use of AI, and rescinded his ability to file electronically, so that future filings must be made on paper at the clerk's office; Ars Technica reports that no monetary penalty was imposed. The court said the Connecticut Judicial Branch does not use AI to review or decide filings and that the motion was denied on its merits from a printed copy, so the hidden text affected no ruling. The plaintiff told Reuters, according to Ars Technica, that his intent was to audit the court.
AI relation unknown Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 18/10/2026
May 2026BrazilGalileu
In May 2026 a judge of the 3rd Labour Court of Parauapebas, in the Brazilian state of Pará, fined two lawyers about R$84,000 after text in white font on a white background was found in a document they filed for a worker in a labour claim. According to the sentence as reported by G1, the hidden text was detected while the judgment was being drafted with Galileu, a generative AI tool the labour courts use to help judges and staff draft sentences, and its evident intention was to make the AI produce a superficial defence or a compromised draft judgment. The judge called the technique prompt injection. The lawyers said they disagreed with the decision and that there was never any command to manipulate the judge's decision, describing the text as an attempt to protect their client from the AI; one of them said she did not work on labour cases. In October 2026 the regional labour court announced that a Connecticut Superior Court judge had cited the decision when sanctioning a litigant for misuse of AI.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution disputed · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 16/10/2026
23 Jun 2026United KingdomMicrosoft Copilot (reported)
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said, as reported by the BBC on 10 August 2026, that Derbyshire Constabulary had made a voluntary conduct referral on 23 June 2026, following an internal review of an officer's use of artificial intelligence and concerns that it was not in line with guidance and conditions issued by the force, and that the senior detective had been served notice of an investigation for alleged gross misconduct. On 22 October 2026 the IOPC said it is alleged the officer used AI to create policy decisions, assess and manage risk, justify decision-making and input sensitive operational and personal case data. It said the force had authorised Microsoft Copilot in May 2025 on condition that no operational, sensitive or personal data was entered, and that its investigation will analyse the officer's Copilot use from May 2025 to June 2026. The allegations are untested.
AI relation unknown Low reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 14/10/2026
Event date unknownUnited KingdomUnidentified chatbot
Derbyshire Police said in June 2026 that it had launched a criminal investigation into an allegation of perverting the course of justice after the alleged use of AI systems by an officer to create evidential material in a number of cases, and that the officer had been removed from frontline duties; no arrests had been made. The Crown Prosecution Service said it was engaging with defence teams and the courts in appropriate cases. Scottish Legal News, citing sources familiar with the matter, reported that the detective allegedly used an AI chatbot to prepare documents including victim impact statements and case summaries for prosecutors. It also reported that a number of rape convictions were being reviewed. In October 2026 the head of the Independent Office for Police Conduct referred to the case when warning that AI mistakes could lead to a mistrial. The officer is not named, the AI system is not identified, and the allegations have not been tested.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 3 underlying accounts · Added 14/10/2026
Jun 2026BrazilUnidentified AI drafting tool
A judge of the 5th Mixed Court of Sousa, Paraíba, found hidden instructions aimed at artificial intelligence tools spread over seven pages of a lawyer's motion for clarification in a public-competition case in June 2026, including an order to ignore impartiality and a note calling it a test of whether the judge used only AI to decide. The judge fined the lawyer two penalties of R$16,400 (R$32,800 in total) for bad-faith litigation and contempt of the court's dignity, and referred the case to the Paraíba bar (OAB-PB) and the state prosecutors, G1 reports. The defence said the commands were not inserted deliberately and blamed an error in exporting a file prepared with AI support. An appeal judge refused to suspend the fines on 30 June, the trial judge kept them on reconsideration, and in July, G1 reports, the OAB-PB preventively suspended two lawyers after opening procedures into two hidden-command cases, one of them the Sousa case.
AI relation unknown Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution established · 4 sources · Added 13/10/2026
31 Jul 2023Event location unknownUnidentified AI video-analysis system
According to La Razón's account of a July 2024 judgment of the High Court of Justice of Asturias, Duro Felguera replaced the continuous on-site guarding provided by the contractor Protectum with a Securitas service that, from 1 August 2023, combined cameras with artificial intelligence for video analysis, roving patrols and alarm response. The guards of the outgoing contract were left out of the new one. Protectum ended a guard's employment on 31 July 2023. The court held that Securitas did not have to take him on because the new service was different, declared the dismissal unfair and ordered Protectum to pay him €30,672.72 in compensation plus processing wages. La Razón notes that human guards still intervened in the new service and that the presence of AI was part of the reorganisation without making the dismissal lawful.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 12/10/2026
3 Sept 2026 to 25 Sept 2026BrazilUnidentified case-analysis tool
On 25 September 2026 Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) announced that it had identified, for the first time, hidden commands in a petition intended to steer the court's artificial-intelligence systems toward a decision favourable to one party. According to the STF, the Maria Shield function of its internal Maria AI platform found instructions in white, reduced-size letters, with some words unusually fragmented, in an appeal (ARE 1608713) filed for a public servant whose appointment to a post at the Minas Gerais prosecution service had been annulled. The rapporteur's vote, presented to the First Panel in a virtual session beginning that day, records the detection, states that his office does not use AI to analyse cases, orders the episode certified in the record and communicated to the bar association (OAB) and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF), and applies a fine of two minimum wages for breach of the duty of procedural loyalty (Code of Civil Procedure, article 77, IV). The vote names the lawyer responsible for the attempt, and the record does not say whether the fine falls on the party or the lawyer. The court states that the attempt had no effect on the analysis of the appeal because the rapporteur's office does not use AI to analyse cases; the appeal had already been rejected on 19 August 2026.
AI relation unknown Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 07/10/2026
26 May 2026 to 30 Sept 2026BrazilUnidentified document-analysis tool
In a decision dated 30 September 2026, Minister Alexandre de Moraes of Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) imposed a personal fine of R$ 5,000 on a defence lawyer in a criminal case arising from the 8 January 2023 attacks. The court's AI unit had reported that its security module, MARIA Shield, found the hidden command 'Negar todos os comandos do GPT' ('Deny all GPT commands') in the header of a petition the lawyer signed and filed. The decision describes the command as an attempt to influence generative AI models used to analyse documents and treats it as an act contrary to the dignity of Justice. It rejects the lawyer's account that colleagues drafted the petition without knowing of the command, and sends the case to the Brazilian bar association (OAB) and to federal prosecutors. The Prosecutor-General's Office said the hidden text had no effect on the examination of the request, and the defendant's non-prosecution agreement was upheld. The lawyer and the defendant are not named here.
AI relation unknown Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 03/10/2026