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 (594 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mary Stephens v. Helena-West Helena School District | E.D. Arkansas (Delta Division) (USA) | 20 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
|
Order to Show Cause | — | — | |
| Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (2) | W.D. Washington (USA) | 20 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(6)
|
Struck filings | — | — | |
| Riley v. Nuvei Australia Merchant Services | Fair Work Commission (Australia) | 19 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Unidentified |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
|
— | — | ||
| Steven E. Hobbs, Sr. v. Igor Goncharko, et al. (2) | N.D. Illinois (USA) | 16 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(4)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Rev. Heidi Grossman Lepp v. Conrad Mallett, Jr., et al. | E.D. Michigan (USA) | 16 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | OpenAI ChatGPT-4o |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Arguments ignored | — | — | |
|
The Court refused to consider a pro se plaintiff's AI-generated "Legal Analysis Report" produced with ChatGPT-4o because it contained incorrect and factitious citations and misstatements of law; the Rule 60(b) motion was denied. |
|||||||||
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Riverchase v. Paula Goldwyn | CA Kansas (USA) | 16 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(3)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(2)
Outdated Advice
Overturned Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Robby Mendez v. City of Topeka, et al. | D. Kansas (USA) | 16 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — |
Plaintiff's Response
|
|
|
While the court did not ascertained whether the plaintiff's brief contained any hallucination, Pelaikan identified at least two, as well as several misrepresentations: see the report here. |
|||||||||
| Tafah et al. v. Lake Village Townhomes et al. | D. Maryland (USA) | 16 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(2)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| X. v. Canada | D. DC (USA) | 16 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
|
Adverse Costs order | — | — | |
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Robert Huish v HRMC | First-tier Tribunal (UK) | 16 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Unidentified |
Fabricated
Case Law
(4)
|
— | — | ||
| Lutfi v. Tucker | Federal Circuit and Family Court (Australia) | 16 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Unidentified |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Kisha Peters v. Banner Health | S.D. Texas (USA) | 15 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | ChatGPT |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
|
Recommended Dismissal with Prejudice | — | — | |
| James Fahey v. Wally’s Las Vegas, LLC, et al. | D. Nevada (USA) | 15 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
False Quotes
Case Law
(5)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Re: IMO the Estate of Joseph L. Weddington | CC Delaware (USA) | 15 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Hang Zhang v. Daniel Driscoll | N.D. California (USA) | 14 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(2)
|
Monetary Sanction | 500 USD | — | |
|
Order to Show Cause is here. |
|||||||||
| Suday v. Suday | CA Texas (USA) | 14 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(6)
|
Warning | — | — | |
|
The court found that nearly all caselaw cited in the appellant's supplemental brief could not be located and appears fictitious; the court suggested the use of an AI tool but chose to address the merits and issued a caution about reliance on such tools. |
|||||||||
| Saber v. Navy Federal Credit Union | SC Pennsylvania (USA) | 14 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
|
— | — | ||
| Reketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, LLC | E.D. North Carolina (USA) | 13 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Unidentified |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court in and for County of Clark | SC Nevada (USA) | 13 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Nguyen v. Pennymac Loan Services, LLC | D. Nevada (USA) | 13 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(4)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Vanderberg v. Shviro | Rehovot Small Claims Court (Israel) | 12 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Monetary Sanction | 3000 ILS | — | |
| O. Gene Bicknell v. Richard M. Silanskas Jr., et al. | N.D. Oklahoma (USA) | 12 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(5)
False Quotes
Case Law
(2)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(3)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Smith and Commissioner of Taxation | Administrative Review Tribunal (Australia) | 12 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(4)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(2)
|
— | — | ||
| Hayes v. Chipotle Mexican Grill | M.D. Florida (USA) | 9 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(4)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Zaykariya v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, et al. | W.D. Oklahoma (USA) | 9 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(8)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Pearl Gardner v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC | D. Arizona (USA) | 9 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Clearpoint |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1),
Legal Norm
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
|
Bar Referral | — | — | |
|
Clearpoint, a non-party document preparer, used undisclosed AI to draft filings for the pro se plaintiff that contained numerous nonexistent cases, statutes, and misquoted/misconstrued authorities. Nationstar highlighted over sixty instances; the Court found hallmarks of AI-produced work and referred the matter to the Arizona State Bar and Attorney General for potential investigation. |
|||||||||
|
Source: Volokh
|
|||||||||
| Maturin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. | D. New Mexico (USA) | 8 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied | Fabricated/false case citations (false citations alleged in plaintiff filings) | Adverse Costs Order; Order to disclose AI use | — | — | |
| Saad Hanna v. Kimberly A. Nelson | Colorado CA (USA) | 8 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(2)
|
Warning; No adverse costs order | — | — | |
|
The defendant-appellee alleged that Hanna's brief contained nonexistent case citations generated by a GenAI tool. The court noted alleged fabricated citations and some incorrect citations but declined to impose sanctions against the pro se appellant, affirming the dismissal and denying attorney fees. |
|||||||||
| Desmond Cunningham v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union, et al. | N.D. Mississippi (USA) | 7 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
|
All claims dismissed with prejudice; warning | — |
Plaintiff's Response
|
|
| Hector Salvatori v. The Huntington National Bank | S.D. Ohio (USA) | 7 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(2)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| Jessica Baker v. Ryan Joseph Baker | Superior Court of Pennsylvania (USA) | 7 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(5)
|
— | — | ||
| Thu Thuy Nguyen v. PennyMac Loan Services | D. Nevada (USA) | 7 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(4)
|
Warning; Possible Monetary Sanction | — | — | |
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Kamps v. British Crown Corporation, et al. | W.D. Michigan (USA) | 7 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
|
Case dismissed as frivolous. | — | — | |
|
The court found the plaintiff's objections and central claims rooted in sovereign-citizen ideology and noted a fabricated quotation attributed to Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 U.S. 54 (1795). The R&R was adopted and the action dismissed as frivolous. |
|||||||||
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| United States v. Juliet Payseur and 20-22 McGregor Avenue, LLC | D. New Jersey (USA) | 7 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Unidentified |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(2)
|
Warning | — |
Motion to Strike
|
|
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Ramos v. Ramos | CA Minnesota (USA) | 7 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Argument treated as forfeited | — | — | |
| Mr. Deepak s/o Shivkumar Bahry v. Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd. | HC Bombay (India) | 7 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Adverse costs order | 1 | — | |
|
Source: Alvin Antony
|
|||||||||
| Hanlon v. Parkersburg City | CC Wood County, W.V. (USA) | 6 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Request for injunctive relief dismissed | — | — | |
| Tamisha Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia et al/ | SC Gwinnett County, Georgia (USA) | 6 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(3)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Monetary Sanction | 2632 | — | |
| Greenwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan | BC CRT (Canada) | 5 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
Misrepresented
Legal Norm
(1)
|
— | — | ||
| Ayatollah Hylton v. Chivone Janee Hylton, et al. | S.D. Florida (USA) | 5 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Allen v. Experian Information Solutions | D. Idaho (USA) | 4 January 2026 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
False Quotes
Case Law
(2)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency v. Bradley K. Bass, et al. | Massachusetts Land Court (USA) | 31 December 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Cesareo v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey | D. New Jersey (USA) | 31 December 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(2)
|
— | — | ||
|
Source: Jesse Schaefer
|
|||||||||
| Johnson v. Digital Federal Credit Union | N.D. Texas (USA) | 30 December 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
— |
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
|
||
| Pauliah v. University of Mississippi Medical Center | S.D. Mississippi (USA) | 30 December 2025 | Lawyer, Pro Se Litigant | Unidentified |
Fabricated
Exhibits or Submissions
(2)
False Quotes
Exhibits or Submissions
(1)
|
Monetary Sanction; CLE | 5000 USD | — | |
|
The plaintiff's sworn declaration contained multiple fabricated quotations and manufactured deposition citations. Defendants identified the fabrications in a motion to strike; the court found the declaration filed in bad faith, struck it, and imposed sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(h). The plaintiff admitted using generative AI to draft portions and failing to review the declaration; counsel failed to verify the citations despite attending and taking the depositions. |
|||||||||
| Nicole Beverly Silverberg v. Steven Bonomo, et al. | D. Nevada (USA) | 30 December 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
False Quotes
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Ng v. AmGuard Insurance Company, et al. | S.D. New York (USA) | 29 December 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — |
Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition
|
|
| Rachel Jones v. Experian Information Solutions | E.D. Michigan (USA) | 29 December 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Cherleatha B. v. Frank Bisignano | D. South Carolina (USA) | 29 December 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
Fabricated
Case Law
(1)
|
Warning | — | — | |
| Chaudhary v. Genest | HRT Ontario (Canada) | 29 December 2025 | Pro Se Litigant | Implied |
False Quotes
Case Law
(2)
Misrepresented
Case Law
(1)
|
— | — | ||