AI Hallucination Cases

The court observed that Mother's briefs included many cited authorities that do not exist and that one statute she cited was not on point. Mother admitted using Chat GPT to prepare pleadings. The court affirmed the trial court's orders and warned litigants to verify AI-generated citations.

The appellant admitted using generative AI to prepare her Amended Grounds of Appeal. The Appeal Panel and respondent identified numerous incorrect or inapplicable citations and legal propositions generated by AI; the panel noted the appellant failed to verify those citations contrary to NCAT Procedural Direction 7 and treated the Amended Grounds as unreliable in parts when assessing whether questions of law were raised.

Motion for reconsideration was later dismissed, partly because of AI misuse behaviour (see here).

The City argued—and the Court found—that the pro se plaintiff repeatedly cited nonexistent or inaccurately attributed caselaw likely generated by AI. The Court found these citations violated Rule 11, warned the plaintiff, and declined to award fees or impose sanctions. The court preserved the original incorrect citations in the opinion as part of the record.

The court was unable to locate one of the plaintiff's case citations and several quotations attributed to other cases; the court suspected portions of the filings were AI-generated and noted potential Rule 11 violations but did not impose sanctions.

Costs were awarded here.

"On September 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed his response to the court’s order to file copies of the cases he cited (#7). Therein, Plaintiff avers he took “concrete remedial steps” to cure the time wasted by his use of artificial-intelligence-hallucinated case citations, including “submission of the verified opinions as exhibits” (#7 at 2). Indeed, Plaintiff’s response stresses how he“obtained authentic copies” of those cases and “attached” them as exhibits. See (id.).

Plaintiff did not attach any exhibits to his response to this court’s order. The court is convinced that those two case citations are AI-hallucinated. Plaintiff’s insistence that they exist—and that he provided copies of them to this court—is bewildering."

As reported here.

The Claimant used AI to generate case citations in his pleadings; Tribunal found 46 inaccurate or misleading citations (9 wholly fictitious, 37 misrepresentations of real cases) and concluded the conduct was reckless and unreasonable, justifying a costs order.

The court admonished the pro se plaintiff, expressing concern he may be relying on artificial intelligence to draft filings and cite cases without confirming accuracy, and directed him to review Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; no specific fabricated citations or false quotations were identified in the opinion.