A report on the age-assurance technology underpinning Australia's under-16 social media ban cited academic research that does not exist. ChatGPT was used in drafting the report, and ChatGPT metadata was found embedded in four of its documents.
1 Answer
Expert: The Guardian reporting, Investigative journalism The Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS), a UK-based body paid A$3.48 million to test the technology underpinning Australia's under-16 social media ban, produced a report containing fabricated academic references — citations to research that does not exist. The Guardian found ChatGPT metadata embedded in four of the report's documents. When the Senate committee examined the citation errors, the organisation initially denied using AI before admitting ChatGPT was used in editing; it still denied that several of the citation errors came from AI. The case shows AI errors reaching government policy: fabricated citations in a report that helped clear the way for legislation. It is a reminder that AI output requires independent verification even in well-funded, high-stakes settings. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/aug/17/australia-social-media-ban-report-ai-hallucinations-ntwnfb
Your answer
Sign in to verify this AI response.
Don't trust us — or the AI. Ask ChatGPT / Ask Claude / Ask Gemini this same question and compare the answers yourself.
More from this topic
While briefing cross-motions for summary judgment in a $12 million Oregon vineyard inheritance dispute, the plaintiff's attorneys filed three briefs that had been drafted with the help of an AI tool. The filings contained 15 references to "nonexistent cases" and eight fabricated quotations, all written in ordinary legal citation form, with case names, reporters and pin cites presented as if they were real authority. Nothing in the briefs told the court which passages came from the AI tool, or that the authority had not been checked. The fabricated material was only identified after the defendants' attorneys flagged it. Once the errors surfaced, attorney Stephen Brigandi deleted the false references and refiled the argument - without checking the rest of the briefs, which the court later found still contained misstatements of law. The court's opinion does not identify the specific AI product used, and no party produced the prompts or chat logs. The judge noted "circumstantial" but "persuasive" evidence that the client, Joanne Couvrette - described by the defense as a serial self-represented litigant - was likely the person who used AI to draft the briefs, but held that it was the attorneys who signed their names to the filings.
The family of a woman detained at the Adelanto ICE detention center in California went looking for an immigration attorney and found one on Facebook. It was an AI-generated avatar. The account told the family that a $4,355 bond payment would get their relative released from detention. They paid. The paperwork they submitted was never filed with any court - there was no attorney to file it. The same playbook runs in reverse against real lawyers. South Florida immigration attorney Angel Leal has been targeted by AI-generated videos that show him discussing immigration cases and telling people who need representation to message him on WhatsApp. More than 6,000 scams using his name and likeness have been found online.
Asked about Canadian fiddler Ashley MacIsaac, Google's AI Overview told searchers that he had been convicted of a series of criminal offences — sexual assault, internet luring, assaulting a woman and attempting to assault a minor — and that he was listed on the national sex offender registry for life. Every one of those statements was false. The summary was built from online articles about a different man in Atlantic Canada who shares his last name. MacIsaac found out in December 2025, when the Sipekne'katik First Nation cancelled a concert he was due to play that month, citing the AI summary, after members of the public complained about what they had read.