AI Hallucination Cases

This database tracks legal decisions¹ I.e., all documents where the use of AI, whether established or merely alleged, is addressed in more than a passing reference by the court or tribunal.

Notably, this does not cover mere allegations of hallucinations, but only cases where the court or tribunal has explicitly found (or implied) that a party relied on hallucinated content or material.

As an exception, the database also covers some judicial decisions where AI use was alleged but not confirmed. This is a judgment call on my part. in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content – typically fake citations, but also other types of AI-generated arguments. It does not track the (necessarily wider) universe of all fake citations or use of AI in court filings.

While seeking to be exhaustive (1451 cases identified so far), it is a work in progress and will expand as new examples emerge. This database has been featured in news media, and indeed in several decisions dealing with hallucinated material.² Examples of media coverage include:
- M. Hiltzik, AI 'hallucinations' are a growing problem for the legal profession (LA Times, 22 May 2025)
- E. Volokh, "AI Hallucination Cases," from Courts All Over the World (Volokh Conspiracy, 18 May 2025)
- J-.M. Manach, "Il génère des plaidoiries par IA, et en recense 160 ayant « halluciné » depuis 2023" (Next, 1 July 2025) - J. Koebler & J. Roscoe, "18 Lawyers Caught Using AI Explain Why They Did It (404 Media, 30 September 2025)

Based on this database, I have developed an automated reference checker that also detects hallucinations: PelAIkan. Check the Reports in the database for examples, and reach out to me for a demo.

For weekly takes on cases like these, and what they mean for legal practice, subscribe to Artificial Authority.