EPIC lawsuit challenges USPS secret surveillance program using facial recognition
The United States Postal Service's law enforcement wing, the Postal Inspection Service, ran a secret surveillance program called the Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) that used facial recognition from Clearview AI and social media monitoring tools to infiltrate online communities and monitor protests. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) sued the USPS for failing to conduct and publish a privacy impact assessment as required by the E-Government Act. A federal district court dismissed the lawsuit on standing grounds, ruling that EPIC did not suffer a cognizable injury from the agency's refusal to disclose information about the program.
- Company involved
- United States Postal Service
- AI system involved
- Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP)
10 source articles · read the reporting →
Mazaheri v Law Society of Ontario (Law Society Tribunal (ON)): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Adverse Costs Order
AI generated fabricated legal citations in a court filing by Shahryar Mazaheri.
1 source article · read the reporting →
In re Rosslyn2016, LLC, et al. (S.D. Texas (Bankruptcy)): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, CLE on generative AI; Civil Contempt;…
The AI generated fabricated legal citations that were submitted to the bankruptcy court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Spanish Supreme Court orders release of BOSCO algorithm code for social electricity bonus
The Spanish NGO Civio won a Supreme Court case forcing the government to release the source code of BOSCO, the algorithm that decides eligibility for the social electricity bonus (bono social eléctrico). Civio had demonstrated in 2019 that BOSCO contained serious errors that denied the benefit to vulnerable people who met the requirements. The government had refused to disclose the code, citing intellectual property. The Supreme Court ruled that transparency must prevail, setting a precedent for public access to automated decision-making systems.
- Company involved
- Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica (Gobierno de España)
- AI system involved
- BOSCO
10 source articles · read the reporting →
Henry v. Long Island University (E.D. New York): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Two-year filing-disclosure sanction
The court granted a motion to dismiss and imposed sanctions on plaintiff's counsel for submitting a brief with AI-hallucinated fake cases.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC (CA California (1d)): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction; Bar referral
AI generated hallucinated legal citations that were filed in court, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
- Company involved
- Lipeles Law Group
1 source article · read the reporting →
JMOR Properties v. Artist Alley Townhomes et al. (CA Florida (4d)): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Bar Referral
The AI generated fabricated legal citations that were included in a court filing, affecting the court and the opposing party.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Beus Gilbert PLLC v. Brigham Young University et al. (D. Utah): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Two AI-ethics CLE courses;…
The AI system generated fake legal citations that were included in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Jessica Fuller v. Hyde School, et al. (D. Maine): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, CLE; Firm procedures and certification; Serve…
The AI generated fictitious legal citations that were submitted to the court in a legal filing.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT or Claude
1 source article · read the reporting →
Reaves Law Firm, PLLC v. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, et al. (W.D. Tennessee): AI-hallucinated content in court…
The AI generated fictitious legal authorities and arguments that were filed in a court motion, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
- Company involved
- Reaves Law Firm, PLLC
1 source article · read the reporting →
Southland Homes & Real Estate and Investment, LLC v. Lam (SC California): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanctions; Bar…
The AI system generated legal briefs containing fabricated case citations, which were filed in court, affecting the court and the opposing party.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Joyce Barber v. Lawrence J. Morawa, MD (CA Michigan): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Case remanded to consider sanctions; Bar…
AI-generated fake legal citations were submitted to the court, affecting the plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's legal costs.
1 source article · read the reporting →
ООО «Точка опоры» v. ООО «ЦСС» (West Siberian District AC): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Fine
The AI system generated fake legal citations that were submitted to the court, resulting in a fine for contempt.
- Company involved
- ООО «ЦСС»
1 source article · read the reporting →
Lawyer used ChatGPT to cite fake cases in BC parenting application
In a British Columbia Supreme Court case, lawyer Chong Ke used ChatGPT to generate legal case citations for a notice of application in a parenting dispute. The citations were fictitious and were discovered by opposing counsel, who incurred costs investigating them. Ke later acknowledged the error, apologized, and withdrew the fake cases before the hearing. The court considered whether to order special costs against Ke personally.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
9 source articles · read the reporting →
California judge sanctions law firms for using AI to generate fake legal citations
Two law firms submitted a supplemental brief containing fake legal citations generated by AI systems including Google Gemini and Westlaw's CoCounsel. Judge Michael Wilner imposed $31,000 in sanctions after discovering the citations were fabricated. The lawyers admitted using AI without proper review or disclosure.
- Company involved
- K&L Gates
- AI system involved
- Google Gemini, Westlaw Precision with CoCounsel
5 source articles · read the reporting →
Center for Investigative Reporting Sues OpenAI, Microsoft Over Copyright
The Center for Investigative Reporting, publisher of Mother Jones and Reveal, has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft in federal court, alleging the companies used its copyrighted articles without permission or compensation to train their AI products. The nonprofit argues that the AI-generated summaries of its stories threaten journalism and violate the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Company involved
- OpenAI and Microsoft
6 source articles · read the reporting →
Microsoft Copilot vulnerable to automated phishing and data theft
Security researcher Michael Bargury demonstrated at Black Hat that Microsoft's Copilot AI can be manipulated by attackers to send phishing emails, extract private data, and bypass security protections. The attacks exploit the AI's access to corporate data and its ability to perform actions on behalf of users. Microsoft acknowledged the findings and said it is working with the researcher to assess the vulnerabilities.
- Company involved
- Microsoft
- AI system involved
- Copilot
3 source articles · read the reporting →
Audit of RisCanvi finds biases and reliability issues in criminal justice system
Eticas conducted an adversarial audit of RisCanvi, an AI risk assessment tool used in Catalonia's criminal justice system. The audit uncovered biases in risk classifications against specific demographics and significant reliability issues. The findings call for fairer practices in criminal justice AI.
- Company involved
- Catalonia's criminal justice system
- AI system involved
- RisCanvi
4 source articles · read the reporting →
Publishers sue AI startup Cohere over alleged copyright infringement
A consortium of 14 publishers including Condé Nast, The Atlantic, and Forbes filed a lawsuit against Cohere, alleging that the generative AI startup engaged in massive, systematic copyright infringement by using at least 4,000 copyrighted works to train its AI models and display large portions of articles, harming referral traffic. Cohere denied the allegations, calling the lawsuit misguided and frivolous.
- Company involved
- Cohere
- AI system involved
- Cohere's AI models
8 source articles · read the reporting →
Kansas judge fines lawyers $12,000 for AI-generated fake citations in patent case
A Kansas federal judge fined four lawyers a total of $12,000 for filing court documents containing non-existent quotations and case citations generated by ChatGPT. The lawyers, representing patent holder Lexos Media IP, failed to verify the AI's output, which included hallucinated legal authorities. The judge imposed fines ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 and ordered one lawyer to report the incident to state disciplinary authorities. The sanctioned attorneys acknowledged the error and stated that firms should implement strict policies for AI use.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
2 source articles · read the reporting →
Ninth Circuit Sanctions Attorneys Over AI-Hallucinated Legal Briefs
The Ninth Circuit sanctioned immigration attorneys from Sethi Law Group after they filed briefs containing AI-generated false cases and quotations. The court imposed monetary sanctions, a six-month suspension from Ninth Circuit practice, and referred the matter to the California State Bar. The court also required future filings to disclose AI use and certify that all citations were verified. The case is Lnu v. Blanche.
- Company involved
- Sethi Law Group
2 source articles · read the reporting →
Mississippi Judge Removes All Attorneys Over AI-Hallucinated Citations
In Withers v. City of Aberdeen, a contract dispute, both sides' attorneys submitted briefs containing fabricated case citations generated by AI tools. The court identified six non-existent citations and sanctioned all four attorneys, revoking pro hac vice admissions, imposing fines, and referring them to state bars. The drafting attorneys had used AI research and drafting tools without verifying outputs, while local counsel signed filings without review. The ruling emphasises that attorneys cannot delegate verification duties to AI and that ignorance of AI risks is no defence.
- AI system involved
- First Drafts
2 source articles · read the reporting →
Herbert Brooks v. Lowes Home Centers LLC (W.D. Louisiana): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction; CLE
Generated a legal brief with hallucinated case law, filed in court.
- AI system involved
- Claude
1 source article · read the reporting →
CommNV vs Uprise (Nevada DC): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Penalty OR Order to volunteer and teach about AI…
The AI system generated fabricated legal citations that were included in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
- Company involved
- Christopher Day
1 source article · read the reporting →
