AI Hallucination Cases

Defendants contended that Dr. Brian Osborne relied on nonexistent academic articles and miscited sources generated by an AI citation tool. Plaintiffs said the errors were formatting miscites from an AI citation tool and were corrected. The Court declined to exclude Osborne's opinions on this basis, permitting defendants to explore the issue on cross-examination and barring any regurgitation of hearsay at trial.

Order to Show Cause is here.

See the story as recounted, e.g., here.

Rodgers' declaration included a non-existent Wisconsin criminal case citation (reported by Bloomberg Law). Court found the error inadvertent, attributable to reliance on Bloomberg, and denied sanctions because conduct was neither reckless nor in bad faith.

The Court found plaintiff repeatedly cited cases that could not be located and attributed false quotations to existing cases and statutes, concluding many citations were AI-generated; awarded reduced fees under §1927 given pro se status.

The court found that the majority of legal authorities in appellant counsel's reply brief were incorrect or did not support the propositions for which they were cited. The court struck the reply brief, imposed monetary sanctions of $5,070, and directed a copy of the opinion be forwarded to the State Bar.

"We disagree with respondent, however, that dismissing the appeal is an appropriate sanction for Farivar’s conduct. Our inherent authority to impose this sanction “should be exercised only in extreme situations, such as where the conduct was clear and deliberate and no lesser sanction would remedy the situation.” (Crawford v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1265, 1271.) We conclude that we can sufficiently address the prejudice to the parties and the court from [Counsel]’s sanctionable conduct and sufficiently achieve the deterrent purpose of sanctions (see, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subds. (b)(2), (c) & (h)) by doing the following:

First, [Counsel] shall pay sanctions in the amount of $7,500 to the clerk of this court within 30 days after the remittitur is filed. We calculate this amount based on, inter alia: (1) the significant amount of time this court spent verifying the fabricated citations in the opening brief, and (2) that Farivar refused to accept responsibility for his conduct, instead characterizing the fabricated quotations and citations as mere “clerical citation errors” and continuing to misrepresent legal authority in his opposition to the sanctions motion.

Second, we strike appellant’s opening brief and require appellant to file, within 10 days of the issuance of this order,a corrected opening brief. Appellant’s corrected brief may differ from the version originally filed only to the extent it corrects or omits the fabricated citations and quotations in the original version. Appellant shall file and serve both a final version of the new brief as well as a redline version.

Finally, because we conclude attorney Farivar has violated a Rule of Professional Conduct, we are required to “take appropriate corrective action.” (Cal. Code Jud. Ethics,canon 3D(2).) In line with this obligation, we direct the clerk of the court to serve a copy of this order on the State Bar.

We acknowledge and have considered that, as appellant argues, the majority of the fabricated quotes in the opening brief do not appear to be misrepresentations that work to appellant’s advantage; that is, the brief does not represent the law to be more favorable to appellant’s arguments than it actually is.

Nonetheless, we must consider broader concerns about the integrity of the courts and the legal profession. Inaccurate citations in briefing—whether the result of technological hallucinations or human failure to verify—may be relied on in court decisions, “circulated, believed, and become ‘fact’ and ‘law’ in some minds. We all must guard against those instances. . . . ‘There is no room in our court system for the submission of fake,10hallucinated case citations, facts, or law. . . . ’ [Citation.]” (Noland, supra, 114 Cal.App.5th at pp. 448-449.)"

Order to Show Cause is here.

The Court identified multiple instances where counsel cited nonexistent cases and misquoted Cal. Civ. Code § 988(c). The Court admonished counsel, noted corrections in later briefing, and declined to credit the arguments based on the erroneous citations. No sanctions were imposed.

Earlier tentative order is here.

Court denied OSC/motion on procedural safe-harbor grounds but found defendants submitted miscited, non-existent, and inapposite authorities (and noted risk of AI-generated fake citations). Defendants accepted responsibility but no sanctions imposed.