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 (978 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)
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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Capital One | CA, Tenth Circuit (USA) | 6 February 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| Mutugu v. Kiaraho | CA Indiana (USA) | 6 February 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1),
Exhibits or Submissions
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| Nonnie Berg v. United Airlines, Inc. (3) | D. Colorado (USA) | 6 February 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Unidentified |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Filing restriction | — | — | |
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Ravi Kadiyala v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing et al. | N.D. Illinois (USA) | 6 February 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Raul Gonzales Davila v. Roblen | United States District Court, D. Connecticut (USA) | 6 February 2026 | Lawyer | Unidentified |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
|
CLE | — | — | |
| Arkansas DHS v. April Ward and Minor Child Respondents | SC Arkansas (USA) | 5 February 2026 | Lawyer | Copilot |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
Outdated Advice
Repealed Law
(1)
|
Report to Office of Professional Conduct and Counsel dismissal | — | — | |
|
Order to Show Cause is here. |
|||||||||
|
Source: Robert Freund
|
|||||||||
| Woodward Harbor L.L.C., et al. v. City of Mandeville | E.D. Louisiana (USA) | 5 February 2026 | Lawyer | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Show Cause Order | — | — | |
| Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue | S.D. New York (USA) | 5 February 2026 | Lawyer | NotebookLM; vLex; Paxton AI |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Brief Struck; Default Judgment | — |
Memorandum of Law
|
|
|
Counsel Steven A. Feldman repeatedly filed submissions containing AI-generated nonexistent case citations and misattributed quotations. Opposing counsel flagged numerous errors; the Court found fabricated citations and false quotes, concluded counsel acted in bad faith or with conscious avoidance, struck the filings, and entered default judgment against counsel's client Affable Avenue LLC. The Court permitted opposing counsel to apply for attorneys' fees. |
|||||||||
| In re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation | J.P.M.L. (USA) | 5 February 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
False Quotes
Case Law
(5)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Mitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Sigrid McCawley | S.D. Florida (USA) | 4 February 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(4)
False Quotes
Case Law
(3)
Misrepresented
Exhibits or Submissions
(1)
|
Show Cause Order; Order to certify review of citations | — | — | |
| Offen Petroleum v. L&J Express | D. Arizona (USA) | 4 February 2026 | Lawyer | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| In re the Matter of: Abius Rosas Carreon | CA Arizona (USA) | 4 February 2026 | Lawyer | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Ericka Holmes v. The University of Texas at Austin | W.D. Texas (USA) | 4 February 2026 | Lawyer | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(2),
Exhibits or Submissions
(1)
|
Show Cause Order | — | — | |
| Sebastian Rako v. VMware LLC (2) | N.D. California (USA) | 4 February 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Required meet-and-confer for AI-use disputes | — | — | |
| Sophia Madigan v. Graco Inc. | D. Minnesota (USA) | 4 February 2026 | Lawyer | Unidentified |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Joann LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. | W.D. Washington (USA) | 4 February 2026 | Lawyer | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1),
Doctrinal Work
(1),
Legal Norm
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(4),
Exhibits or Submissions
(1)
|
Order to Show Cause | — | — | |
| Kizzie Sims & Estate of Gregory Neil Davis v. Board of County Commissioners | W.D. Oklahoma (USA) | 3 February 2026 | Lawyer | Unidentified |
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| Azad Alamgir Kabir v. WebMD | D. New Jersey (USA) | 3 February 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Struck filings; warning | — | — | |
| 1S REO Opportunity 1, LLC v. 223 Howard LLC | E.D. New York (USA) | 3 February 2026 | Lawyer | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc. | D. Kansas (USA) | 2 February 2026 | Lawyer | ChatGPT |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(6)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(2)
|
Brief struck, monetary sanction, firm compliance | 12000 USD | — | |
|
Order to show cause was here. |
|||||||||
|
Source: Robert Freund
|
|||||||||
| Emmanuel S. Yirenkyi v. Angela Hoover | M.D. Pennsylvania (USA) | 2 February 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Unidentified |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
|
— | — | ||
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Ortiz Fatima Cecilia v. Booking.com y otros | JCC de Tucumán (Argentina) | 2 February 2026 | Lawyer | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(6)
|
Monetary sanction, bar referral, adverse costs order | 620000 ARS | — | |
| Broadwater Tower | Queensland BCCMC (Australia) | 2 February 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Legal Norm
(3)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Yang v. University of Minnesota | CA Minnesota (USA) | 2 February 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Stephen Schaaf v. Nellis Auction Holdings, LLC, et al. | D. Nevada (USA) | 30 January 2026 | Lawyer | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Admonishment | — | — | |
| Theoda E. Mills, Jr. v. City of St. Louis, et al. | E.D. Missouri (USA) | 30 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Exhibits or Submissions
(1)
|
Case dismissed with prejudice as a Rule 11 sanction | — | — | |
|
Show Cause Order is here. |
|||||||||
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Wilcox v. Gingrinch | CA Indiana (USA) | 30 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(4)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(4)
|
— | — | ||
| SEC v. Joseph Nantomah et al. | E.D. Wisconsin (USA) | 30 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(3)
|
Brief Struck | — | — | |
| PSAHSC v. Tchampet | High Court (UK) | 30 January 2026 | Lawyer | Microsoft Co-Pilot |
False Quotes
Case Law
(2)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Counsel admitted the phantom citations created by AI; judge warned counsel and noted potential contempt but took no further sanction or referral to a regulator. | — | — | |
| Mme Y | TA Rennes (France) | 30 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied | — | — | — | ||
| Health Care Complaints Commission v Campbell | NSW CAT (Australia) | 30 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(2)
Outdated Advice
Repealed Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| Folarin v. The Immigration Services Commissionner | First-tier Tribunal (UK) | 29 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | ChatGPT |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| Ava Naeini v. Confluent Inc. | CA California (USA) | 29 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
|
— | — | ||
| Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLC | W.D. Washington (USA) | 29 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(5)
|
Warning | — | — | |
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Nonnie Berg v. United Airlines, Inc. (2) | D. Colorado (USA) | 28 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
|
Warning | — | — | |
|
The court identified citations to seemingly nonexistent cases in the plaintiff's filings (e.g., "Hernandez" and "United States v. Miller"), noted prior warnings about AI-generated or unvetted citations, denied the motions, and warned it may recommend dismissal or similar sanctions if the conduct continues. |
|||||||||
| Abybatou Mbow v. Officer Michael Mackert et al. | D. Maryland (USA) | 28 January 2026 | Lawyer | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(2)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(4)
|
Order to Show Cause | — | — | |
| Life Together Coaching, LLC | GAO (USA) | 28 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
|
Source: David Timm
|
|||||||||
| Matter of: Bramstedt Surgical Inc. | GAO (USA) | 28 January 2026 | Lawyer | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(7)
|
Warning | — | — | |
|
Source: David Timm
|
|||||||||
| Gregory Hardy v. Genesee County Community Action Resource Department, et al. | E.D. Michigan (USA) | 28 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(4)
|
Two reply briefs stricken; warning | — | — | |
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| SAS La Volumerie | TA Rennes (France) | 28 January 2026 | Lawyer | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
|
The tribunal rejected the company's request because none of the grounds were sufficiently detailed and the petition was manifestly drafted using a generative AI tool; the court relied on article R.222-1(7) to dismiss the filing for lack of necessary precision. |
|||||||||
| Brian Bailey v. Hon. Clark A. Ritchie, et al. | W.D. Virginia (USA) | 27 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Ihor Chopko v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company | CA Arizona (USA) | 27 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
|
Warning | — | — | |
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Nelson Henry v. Joseph Iannone and James Deacetis | S.D. Florida (USA) | 27 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
False Quotes
Case Law
(2)
|
— | — | ||
| Davidson v PCL Constructors Inc. | HRT Alberta (Canada) | 27 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| Cassata v. Michael Macrina Architect, P.C. | SC New York (USA) | 27 January 2026 | Lawyer | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2),
Exhibits or Submissions
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(2)
|
Monetary Sanction; Brief struck | 10000 USD | — | |
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Lifetime Well LLC v. IBSpot.com Inc. | E.D. Pennsylvania (USA) | 26 January 2026 | Lawyer | Lexis+ AI; LexisNexis Protégé |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Monetary Sanction; Order to share opinion with Professional Association | 4000 | — | |
|
"Judges and commentators continue to warn lawyers about the risks of artificial intelligence shortcuts. We today address a more fundamental concern: lack of diligence and supervision of less experienced lawyers who can fairly expect supervision. The lawyers disregarded basic fundamental understandings learned in law school about the need to ensure the case citations presented to judges support what lawyers say they do. Counsel fell far short of this fundamental obligation warranting monetary sanctions against the New York co-counsel and non-monetary sanctions against both the New York co-counsel and her local Philadelphia co-counsel. Attorneys are again forewarned. Judges and their talented lawyers in Chambers scrutinize memoranda. Submissions containing unverified authority divert limited resources from other litigants who rely on their advocates’ careful research, accurate citation, and disciplined advocacy. These sanctions serve as a reminder the attorney’s oath of admission demands no less." |
|||||||||
| MacroCharts Research LLC v. Tony Chou | N.D. California (USA) | 26 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Farag v. Persante et al | M.D. Florida (USA) | 26 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
Misrepresented
Exhibits or Submissions
(3),
Legal Norm
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Ralph J. Massetti, Jr. v. Greenspring Capital Management, LLC, et al. | S.D. Florida (USA) | 26 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
|
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint included citations the Court could not locate; Greenspring moved for sanctions citing those nonexistent authorities. The Court found pro se status, correction attempts, and voluntary dismissal counseled against sanctions and therefore recommended denying the motion. |
|||||||||
| Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao | HC Andhra Pradesh (India) | 25 January 2026 | Judge | Unidentified |
Fabricated
Case Law
(4)
|
— | — | ||
|
Source: Alvin Antony
|
|||||||||