The AI Sentinel: verified AI failure case studies
A working reference library of AI failures that actually happened, each one traced back to court records, regulator statements or credible reporting. It exists because board discussions about AI risk go better with evidence than with speculation.
What is in the library
Cases are documented consistently: the organisation involved, the AI tool used, what the system got wrong, who was affected, and the consequences that followed — fines, sanctions, damages, reputational fallout or regulatory action.
Examples include the New York lawyers sanctioned after filing a brief containing six fabricated court citations produced by a chatbot, and the airline held liable by a tribunal for a refund policy its customer service chatbot invented on the spot.
Every entry carries links to its sources, so a director can check the primary record rather than take our summary on trust.
How boards use it
Directors use the library to test their own exposure. If a comparable organisation was caught out by unchecked AI output, the obvious question is what would happen here, and which control would have stopped it.
Cases can be filtered by sector and region, and an archive groups them by month so you can see how the pattern of failures is shifting rather than reading isolated anecdotes.
Verification policy
Nothing is published without a working source. Claims circulating on social media are excluded until they can be tied to a court document, an official statement or established news reporting.
The library is maintained as part of our board advisory work and feeds the Sentinel governance suite. If you want the underlying briefing for your own board, email alan@insight-ai-systems.com.