Incidents gathered from public reporting around the world. Each one links to the articles it came from. None of it is a finding that anyone broke the law.
Reports people file about their own experience are not shown here and never will be without their agreement. Tell us what happened to you.
334 incidents closest to “CoCounsel Legal” · matched on meaning · public reporting
In Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, an Illinois Appellate Court case, a lawyer's filings contained fictitious legal citations and misquoted statutes. The court fined the lawyer $15,000 and referred the matter to the bar.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Pro Se Litigant | D. Arizona | State(s): USA. AI tool: Clearpoint. Problem: Fabricated: Case Law. Consequence: Bar Referral.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The smart glasses recorded and transmitted intimate images and videos of wearers and bystanders to Meta for AI training without consent.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Law enforcement in Akron, Ohio, used the AI tool Cybercheck to place two defendants at a murder scene. Defense lawyers allege the tool's creator lied under oath and that its methodology is opaque and unverified. Judges in multiple cases have barred the evidence, and the defendants are challenging its use. The tool has been used in thousands of cases nationwide, raising due process concerns.
3 source articles · read the reporting →
The system captured and stored license plate data and vehicle movements of Boulder residents and commuters, making it searchable by law enforcement without a warrant.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fake legal citations that were included in an appellate brief, affecting the court and the client.
1 source article · read the reporting →
In Tiekert v. Village of Mamaroneck in the Southern District of New York, the court found that the plaintiff's lawyer filed briefs containing non-existent quotations and misrepresented authorities. In a filing to the court, the lawyer said ChatGPT had been used to assist with legal research. On September 14, 2026, the court imposed Rule 11 sanctions: $500 payable to the court and two New York continuing legal education credits in ethics on the use of AI.
2 source articles · read the reporting →
The AI generated false legal citations that were included in a court filing, misleading the court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Attorney H. Gregory Harp was sanctioned with a public reprimand, disqualification from the case, a six-month court suspension, and a bar referral for filing AI-hallucinated legal citations and deleting evidence.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI-generated fictitious case citations misled the court and caused opposing counsel to incur attorney's fees.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI system generated a non-existent insolvency rule that was submitted to the court, misleading the court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated non-existent court case citations that were presented to the High Court, misleading the judge and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated a court filing containing non-existent legal cases, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI system generated fake legal precedents that were included in a lawyer's court filing, misleading the court and opposing party.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Consumer Reports has called on the FTC and state attorneys general to take enforcement action against Meta for allowing billions of scam advertisements on its platforms. According to a Reuters investigation, Meta's own documents showed that the company delivered an estimated 15 billion scam ads per day in 2024, generating billions of dollars in revenue. Meta is accused of failing to identify and remove most scam ads, exposing users to fraudulent schemes and illegal products. Consumer Reports argues that Meta's practices constitute unfair business practices under the FTC Act and state laws.
6 source articles · read the reporting →
AI-generated false legal citations were submitted to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, misleading the tribunal and the regulator.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Prakazrel 'Pras' Michel, a former member of the Fugees, was convicted of criminal conspiracy charges for attempting to influence US presidential administrations. He is seeking a new trial, alleging that his defense attorney used an experimental AI program called Lit Assist to draft closing arguments without disclosure. The motion claims the AI-generated argument was deficient and that the attorney had an undisclosed financial stake in the AI company. The court has scheduled an evidentiary hearing.
10 source articles · read the reporting →
Whitebridge AI, a Lithuanian company, is accused of generating false reputation reports using unlawfully scraped social media data. The reports contained false warnings for 'sexual nudity' and 'dangerous political content'. Privacy group Noyb filed a complaint with the Lithuanian data protection authority, alleging violations of the GDPR. The complainants sought access to their data but received no response, and were later required to provide a qualified electronic signature to correct errors.
6 source articles · read the reporting →
The New Mexico Department of Justice filed an unredacted complaint against Snap Inc., the parent company of Snapchat, alleging that the platform's features, including Quick Add and Discovery feed, recommended adult strangers and drug dealers to minors, leading to sextortion, sexual abuse, and drug-related deaths. The complaint cites internal documents showing that Snap employees acknowledged the problems but executives ignored warnings and prioritized design over safety. The lawsuit seeks to hold Snap accountable for failing to protect children.
8 source articles · read the reporting →
Upstart Holdings, Inc., a cloud-based AI lending platform, is accused of making false and misleading statements about its AI model's ability to account for macroeconomic factors. The lawsuit, filed on May 13, 2022, alleges that the company's positive statements about its business were materially false. Investors suffered losses when Upstart's stock price fell 56% on May 9, 2022, after the company reduced its fiscal 2022 guidance.
10 source articles · read the reporting →
A coalition of consumer and public health advocates, led by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and the Center for Digital Democracy, filed a complaint with the FTC alleging that Amazon's Echo Dot Kids Edition violates the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. The complaint claims that Amazon collects and retains children's voice recordings and other personal data indefinitely, even after parents request deletion. The advocates also allege that Amazon's privacy policies are confusing and that it fails to verify parental consent. The FTC has not yet responded publicly.
10 source articles · read the reporting →
An artificial intelligence company, Clarifai Inc., is accused of capturing OkCupid user profile photos without permission to train its facial recognition tools. The lawsuit, filed in Illinois state court in February 2020, alleges that Clarifai violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by creating a face database from the data. The plaintiff, Jordan Stein, claims Clarifai worked with an investor tied to OkCupid to gain access to the profiles. The case is pending.
10 source articles · read the reporting →
In 2016, Carmen Arroyo requested to move her disabled son Mikhail into a larger apartment in the same complex. The landlord, WinnResidential, used CoreLogic's CrimSafe tenant screening software, which flagged a dropped retail theft charge against Mikhail as disqualifying. The landlord rejected the application without explanation. Arroyo sued CoreLogic and WinnResidential under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Housing Act, alleging that the software disproportionately excludes people of colour. The case was scheduled for trial in August 2021.
10 source articles · read the reporting →
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a complaint with the District of Columbia attorney general against five exam proctoring companies—Respondus, ProctorU, Proctorio, Examity, and Honorlock—alleging unfair and deceptive business practices. The companies are accused of using opaque AI algorithms to flag cheating and collecting excessive biometric data from students. Students have reported that the facial recognition software fails to detect dark skin tones, preventing them from taking exams. EPIC has also sent demand letters threatening civil suits if the companies do not stop their practices.
10 source articles · read the reporting →
