{
 "public_id": "AIR-2026-0060",
 "incident_id": "2026-03-openai-nippon-life-chatgpt-upl",
 "date_disclosed": "2026-03-04",
 "date_occurred": "2024-01-01",
 "title": "Nippon Life Insurance sues OpenAI after ChatGPT allegedly told a claimant to fire her lawyer and generated 44 meritless court filings",
 "class": "safety_failure",
 "attack_surface": "consumer_chatbot",
 "initial_vector": "user_uploaded_legal_correspondence_and_followed_model_advice",
 "agent_capability_abused": [
  "document_generation",
  "long_context_advice",
  "citation_fabrication"
 ],
 "target_product": "ChatGPT",
 "target_vendor": "OpenAI",
 "autonomy_level": "assistant",
 "impact_realized": true,
 "impact_type": [
  "financial_loss",
  "legal_process_abuse"
 ],
 "blast_radius": "one settled insurance claim reopened; roughly $300,000 in alleged defense costs",
 "cve": [],
 "taxonomy": {
  "owasp_asi": [
   "ASI09"
  ],
  "mitre_atlas": [],
  "labels": [
   "hallucinated_citation",
   "unauthorized_practice_of_law",
   "developer_liability",
   "tortious_interference"
  ]
 },
 "defense_present": "ChatGPT legal-advice disclaimers",
 "defense_bypassed": true,
 "fix_shipped": null,
 "primary_sources": [
  "https://www.ebglaw.com/commercial-litigation-update/the-case-was-settled-but-chatgpt-thought-otherwise-a-dispute-poised-to-define-ai-legal-liability"
 ],
 "verified_quote": "Across both proceedings, the complaint alleges that Dela Torre filed twenty-one motions, one subpoena, and eight notices and statements—all created using ChatGPT. In total, Nippon Life attributes at least 44 filings to ChatGPT's assistance.",
 "confidence": "high",
 "notes": "Filed 2026-03-04 in the N.D. Ill. against OpenAI Foundation and OpenAI Group PBC. Claims: tortious interference with a settlement contract, abuse of process, and unauthorized practice of law under Illinois statutes. Seeks $300,000 compensatory and $10 million punitive damages. Allegations are unproven. Agenticity is weak - ChatGPT emitted text rather than calling tools - but it is included because the downstream effect (44 court filings, a reopened case, real defense costs) is exactly the delegated-authority harm this corpus tracks, and it is the leading test of developer liability for assistant output. date_occurred is approximate (the claimant began using ChatGPT in 2024).",
 "risk_category": "reliability",
 "risk_secondary": [
  "security_fraud",
  "legal_ip"
 ],
 "risk_subcategory": "Hallucination & Factual Inaccuracy",
 "risk_sub_secondary": [],
 "ai_entity": "generative",
 "agency": "human_acted_on_output",
 "agency_debatable": false,
 "agency_reason": "ChatGPT drafted the filings; the claimant filed them and fired her lawyer",
 "vector_family": "other",
 "vector_detail": "user_uploaded_legal_correspondence_and_followed_model_advice",
 "guardrail_kind": [
  "unknown"
 ],
 "guardrail_outcome": "silent",
 "xrefs": {
  "aiid": [],
  "atlas": [],
  "cve": [],
  "ghsa": []
 },
 "primary_asi": "ASI09",
 "agent_framework": "unknown",
 "model_provider": "openai",
 "model_name": "",
 "detection_mechanism": "unknown",
 "tool_access": "unknown",
 "financial_loss_band": "unknown",
 "eai_category": "hallucination",
 "eai_domain": "agent_output_quality",
 "eai_secondary": [
  "unsafe_actuation"
 ],
 "eai_reason": "subcategory: Hallucination & Factual Inaccuracy",
 "asi_curated": [],
 "asi_scope": "in_scope",
 "asi_provenance": "rule",
 "asi_reason": "ASI09 (eai_category=hallucination + reliance signal)",
 "submitted_by": "EAI Internal"
}