AI Hallucination Cases

Actually the fourth order in that case that pertains to hallucinations; a first, June 5 Order is only mentioned in a second, June 18 order that does not call out what appears to be hallucinated references.

The Court preserved the invalid citations in the opinion as they are part of the record, admonished that fabricated or incorrect citations frustrate review and may lead to reprimand or sanction.

"The Court respectfully proposes that the time may be near for an exception to the Erickson liberal-construction rule, where a pro se individual relies on AI to draft pleadings and thus blurs the line between what is a good faith pro se assertion of an actionable claim and what is a computer-generated morass that only serves to waste court time and resources."

Defendant's reply brief contained citations that did not support her arguments and included at least one non-existent case citation; the court concluded these errors suggest use of AI and treated the issues as abandonment under Rule 28(b)(6), dismissing the appeal.

The court found the plaintiff's filings contained misrepresentations of the record—specifically, a purported 'Clerk's Entry of Default' that never existed and a claim that an Immigration Judge made a final binding APA finding. The court attributed these misrepresentations to likely AI generation, warned the plaintiff about consequences for false statements, and construed the misrepresentations as AI misapplication rather than deliberate deception.

The appellant (self-represented) cited two nonexistent cases in her appellate brief. The respondent flagged the fictitious citations and requested sanctions. The court found the citations fictitious, discussed sanction authority and AI-generated filings, but declined to impose sanctions because the request was procedurally inappropriate, the appellant corrected filings promptly, and the legal propositions were, in fact, supported by existing authority.

The appellate court observed that the pro se appellant's opening brief cited cases that do not exist and exhibited hallmarks of generation by a large language model (repetitive 'refined' drafts, internal suggestions, and the statement 'Generative AI is experimental'). The court identified the fabricated citations and noted the brief's deficiencies but proceeded to decide the jurisdictional timeliness issue on the merits, affirming dismissal.

The appellant admitted using generative AI to prepare his Notice of Appeal and Summary of Argument. The Court found several cited authorities could not be located (concluding they were fictitious) and held that deploying unverified AI-generated research that cites non-existent cases breaches duties not to mislead the court and risks contravening Pt XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (on confidentiality of proceedings).

The court found multiple exhibits (videos, photographs, messaging screenshots, and metadata) to be fabricated or materially altered using generative AI. The court deemed Plaintiffs' explanations not credible, declined criminal referral, declined monetary sanctions, and imposed a terminating sanction under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128.7(b).

The magistrate judge found multiple cited authorities in the plaintiff's complaint to be fabricated or misquoted: two cases could not be located and two quotations attributed to real cases did not appear in those opinions. The court warned the plaintiff and ordered him to provide copies of cited cases in future filings; recommended dismissal of federal claims and possible sanctions for continued misrepresentations.

Plaintiff admitted using AI to prepare filings, submitted an unsigned affidavit for a purported attorney and cited cases the court could not locate; court found false statements and potential fake caselaw and ordered show-cause re: Rule 11 sanctions and evidentiary hearing.

Father admitted using ChatGPT to generate case citations; 14 cited cases were non-existent or misattributed. Court treated them as AI hallucinations, disregarded them, awarded costs, and ordered declarations for future AI use.

The applicant relied on numerous case citations that the Board and OSSTF could not locate as cited; one located decision did not support the proposition relied upon. Applicant acknowledged possible citation errors and was asked to provide copies but objected. The Board refused to rely on unlocatable authorities and dismissed the application.

The court later declined to reconsider its sanction (see here).