AI Hallucination Cases

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.

(Monetary sanction decided in later determination, available here.)

Claimant cited several inapplicable regulations to support reimbursement. When directed to supply the texts, claimant admitted he had used artificial intelligence to create his submission and withdrew reliance on the cited regulations except for JTR 053710. The Board denied the claim.

The appellant cited two reported decisions which the Board could not locate and concluded likely do not exist and may have been generated with AI; the Board excluded those authorities from evidence and cautioned the appellant about nondisclosure of AI per the Board's Code of Conduct.

Monsieur Laprade filed a contestation containing multiple citations to non-existent authorities generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence. The Court found these to be fabricated (so-called "hallucinated") citations, constituting a manquement important to the conduct of the proceeding under art. 342 C.p.c., and imposed a 5,000$ sanction.

The Adjudication Officer found the complainant's submissions contained multiple inaccurate and non‑existent legal citations. The Respondent had flagged AI‑generated drafting and numerous phantom or misquoted determinations; the Officer concluded the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case and that the submissions contained egregious and misleading citations.

The appellate opinion and editor's note identify numerous incorrect or non-existent case citations in the appellant's filings. The court treated those citations as unreliable, found several to be fictitious or unlocatable, and declined to credit them in resolving the appeals.

The Court observed that several authorities cited in the Kogers' pro se filings do not exist and appeared to be fabricated (noting possible use of AI), warned of Rule 9011 implications, and treated the filings as part of an abusive litigation strategy warranting dismissal and a one-year filing bar.