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 (831 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)
And if you know of a case that should be included, feel free to contact me.3 (Readers may also be interested in this project regarding AI use in academic papers.)
Based on this database, I have developped 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.
| Case | Court / Jurisdiction | Date ▼ | Party Using AI | AI Tool ⓘ | Nature of Hallucination | Outcome / Sanction | Monetary Penalty | Details | Report(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evans, et al. v. Robertson et al. (3) | E.D. Michigan (USA) | 20 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(9)
False Quotes
Case Law
(5)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Multiple filings stricken from the record; Revocation of online upload privileges | — | — | |
|
Show Cause Order is here. |
|||||||||
|
Source: Volokh
|
|||||||||
| R v Wallace | KB New Brunswick (Canada) | 20 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| RR v. Fraser Health Authority and others (No.3) | British Columbia HRT (Canada) | 20 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| Y.S. v. John Doe et al. | D. Colorado (USA) | 19 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(3)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| DJ v SN | CA Alberta (Canada) | 19 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Unidentified |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Additional Costs | 500 CAD | — | |
| Wang v. Mongeon | HRT Ontario (Canada) | 19 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(3)
|
— | — | ||
| Moorehead v. Goodwill Industries of Northeast Texas | E.D. Texas (USA) | 18 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| In re Bryant | M.D. North Carolina (Bankruptcy) (USA) | 18 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(3)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Show Cause Order | — | — | |
| Kamia Nellum v. Credit Acceptance Corporation | S.D. Indiana (USA) | 18 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Cotto v. United States | D. Colorado (USA) | 17 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Motion for reconsideration denied; court identified the cited case/citation as nonexistent/miscited and rejected reliance on it. | — | — | |
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Mattson & Dostal v. Rosebud Electric Cooperative et al. | D. South Dakota (USA) | 17 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
|
Defendants' reply identified fictitious cases, incorrect citations, and non-existent quotations in Plaintiffs' response brief. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Corrected Citations; the Court noted formatting that suggested use of generative AI but declined to sanction the pro se plaintiffs, advising compliance with Rule 11 in future filings. |
|||||||||
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Jeremie Montgomery v. AFL-CIO | M.D. Tennessee (USA) | 14 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(3)
|
— | — | ||
|
See beginning of judgment: "Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citation references that are incorrect or do not actually exist. These invalid citations appeared in the original court opinion and have been preserved as written since they are part of the official record. Any links to these invalid citations have been removed." |
|||||||||
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Wills v Wilson | Victorian CAT (Australia) | 14 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Unidentified |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1),
Legal Norm
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| Beschluss 4 L 3030/25 | Köln (Germany) | 14 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| Nathan Strong v. The United States | Court of Federal Claims (USA) | 13 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
False Quotes
Case Law
(2)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Robbin Y. Miller v. Andrew Stuart | CA 5th Circuit (USA) | 13 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| William McNae and Ronda McNae v. ARAG Insurance Company | W.D. Washington (USA) | 13 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1),
Legal Norm
(1)
|
Filing struck; monetary sanction | 100 USD | — | |
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Azar c. Université de Montréal | Quebec CA (Canada) | 13 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
|
Source: Courtready
|
|||||||||
| Joshua Harris v. Pinnacle Bank | N.D. Mississippi (USA) | 12 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Show Cause Order | — | — | |
| Jeffery Todd Henson, Sr. v. Lynn A. Espejo | C.D. Illinois (USA) | 12 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| David J. Donovan v. Kathryn Thorson | CA New Mexico (USA) | 12 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| B… S… v. Ministre responsable de la Solidarité sociale et de l'Action communautaire | TAQ Québec (Canada) | 12 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Unidentified |
False Quotes
Legal Norm
(1)
Misrepresented
Legal Norm
(1),
other
(1)
Outdated Advice
Repealed Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
|
Source: Courtready
|
|||||||||
| Coulson v. ASB Bank | High Court (New Zealand) | 11 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
False Quotes
Legal Norm
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| Kuigoua v. Park | CA California (USA) | 10 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| Kevin L. Swincher et al. v. Fay Servicing, LLC et al. | W.D. Kentucky (USA) | 10 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(2)
|
Warning | — | — | |
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Marques Johnson v. Capital One Financial Corporation | E.D. Michigan (USA) | 10 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| Choi v. Slopinski | SC British Columbia (Canada) | 10 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| James Andrew Grimmer v. Citibank, N.A. | D. Minnesota (USA) | 7 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Unidentified |
Fabricated
Case Law
(4)
|
Complaint dismissed with prejudice | — | — | |
|
Plaintiff's opposition brief cited numerous nonexistent cases. Defendant identified the fabricated citations in its reply; plaintiff admitted reliance on an AI-based drafting tool and apologized. The court confirmed several cited cases do not exist but declined to pursue Rule 11 sanctions, finding apology, mitigation, and proportionality concerns. |
|||||||||
| QTR v BXD ([2025] NZERA 716) | Employment Relations Authority (New Zealand) | 7 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | ChatGPT |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Christian Brothers Automotive | W.D. Michigan (USA) | 6 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
|
The court identified that Plaintiff relied on a nonexistent case citation and noted the citation had been previously flagged in the record. |
|||||||||
| Habib Miah v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC, et al. | S.D. New York (USA) | 6 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Travis C. Mills et al. v. Rocket Mortgage LLC et al. | W.D. Louisiana (USA) | 6 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Ross Logan v. LVNV Funding et al. | D. Utah (USA) | 5 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied | Alleged AI-hallucinated case quotations | Warning | — | — | |
| Lowrey v. City of Rio Rancho | D. New Mexico (USA) | 5 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(4)
|
Warning | — | — | |
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Coleman & Lewis v. PNC Bank, N.A. | D. Nevada (USA) | 5 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(4)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education) | Queensland IRC (Australia) | 5 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | ChatGPT |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1),
Legal Norm
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| Todd E. Glass v. Foley & Lardner LLP | W.D. Wisconsin (USA) | 4 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Borsody v. Frontier Heritage Communities | D. Kansas (USA) | 4 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Alaya Coleman v. RPF-Somers Investors, LLC, et al. | E.D. Wisconsin (USA) | 4 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| Xavier Jamal Smith v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. | N.D. Indiana (USA) | 4 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
|
Rather amazingly, plaintiff asked and was granted leave to file a "Case Law Verification Index" that contained further hallucinations. |
|||||||||
| I.H. v. O.K. | CA Indiana (USA) | 3 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Wheat v. Vichie | SC New York (USA) | 3 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| 534246-07-22 | (Israel) | 2 November 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Monetary Sanction | 1000 ILS | — | |
| State ex rel. Soretha Marie Eldridge v. Judge Ashley Kilbane | CA Ohio (USA) | 31 October 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Unidentified |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
|
Relator admitted her petition contained citation errors and hallucinated cases after relying on inadequate assistance; court denied leave to amend and dismissed the writs. |
|||||||||
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Kaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, et al. | D. Hawai‘i (USA) | 31 October 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1),
Legal Norm
(1)
Misrepresented
Legal Norm
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| S… F… c. I… O… | Québec SC (Canada) | 31 October 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | ChatGPT |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Legal Norm
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
|
Source: Courtready
|
|||||||||
| In re: Tracy Johnson | CA Texas (USA) | 30 October 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| In re: Pamela Williams | N.D. Georgia (Bankruptcy) (USA) | 30 October 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
|
Debtor cited a case the court could not locate; the court noted the citation appears incorrect and may be an AI "hallucination," and referenced other decisions sanctioning reliance on fabricated AI-generated cases. |
|||||||||
| Lareina A. Sauls v. Pierce County, et al. | W.D. Washington (USA) | 30 October 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Nonnie Berg v. United Airlines, Inc. (1) | D. Colorado (USA) | 30 October 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(5),
Exhibits or Submissions
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
|
In an earlier Report and Reccomendations, the court found that significant portions of the plaintiff's filings copied from an AI program included citations to cases that could not be identified in Westlaw and an apparent AI-generated medical report; the court struck the filings and instructed compliance with Rule 11 and practice standards. |
|||||||||