AI Abuse Court Cases

AI-related case

Villanueva v. Bowers

Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One · Arizona · Jun 11, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited a non-existent case; opposing counsel identified the error and the court noted the citation did not correspond to any real authority. || Fabricated: Case Law | Brief contained citations to cases with incorrect and impossible pin cites that did not match the cited authorities. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a memorandum decision with an impossible/pre-2015 issuance date inconsistent with the court record.

Judges: Andrew M. Jacobs, Brian Y. Furuya, James B. Morse Jr.

AI-related case

Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing, LLC

CA California (1d) · Jurisdiction not recorded · Jun 11, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition repeatedly relied on two cited cases that the court determined do not exist (non‑existent citations). || False Quotes: Case Law | The brief contained no fewer than eight quotations purportedly from California cases that the court found were fabricated and do not appear in the cited opinions. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The opposition seriously misrepresented the holdings of multiple cases, stating propositions 'the exact inverse' of the true holdings.

Judges:

AI-related case

CH v BD

Michigan Court of Appeals · Michigan · Jun 11, 2026

Judges: Mark T. Boonstra

AI-related case

McCormick v. Texakoma Financial

E.D. Texas · Jurisdiction not recorded · Jun 11, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | A cited case, 'Noviello v. Bayview Asset Management, LLC, No. 3:18-cv-02057, 2019 WL 13175252, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2019)', was fictitious and does not exist as presented. || False Quotes: Case Law | Two quoted passages attributed to Texas v. American Blastfax, Inc. (164 F. Supp. 2d 892 (W.D. Tex. 2001)) do not appear in that opinion and were fabricated. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation to Gene & Gene LLC v. BioPay LLC, 541 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2008) was used to support a proposition about the §227(c)(5) safe-harbor requiring actual compliance, but the cited pages do not support that proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation to Charvat v. GVN Mich., Inc., 561 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2009) was used to support a burdens-of-proof proposition that the court found unsupported by the cited material. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation to Shields Ltd. P'ship v. Bradberry, 526 S.W.3d 471 (Tex. 2017) was used to assert a duty-to-speak estoppel principle that the Court found the cited pages do not establish.

Judges:

AI-related case

Ifeoma Delliane Chinedu Obi v. Cook County, Illinois, et al. (2)

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · Illinois · Jun 10, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff asserted a quoted passage and cited 'Andrade v. Arby Concessions, 88 F.4th 1014 (7th Cir. 2023)'; the court found the quote, the case citation, and the claimed district-court 'acknowledgement' were fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff repeatedly filed AI-generated briefs 'riddled with fabricated cases and arguments,' leading the court to find ongoing Rule 11 violations.

Judges: Virginia Mary Kendall

AI-related case

In re Garcia-Martz

N.D. Indiana (Bankruptcy) · Jurisdiction not recorded · Jun 10, 2026

Misrepresented: Case Law | Trustee relied on In re Sweports (7th Cir.) as 'binding' to require return of funds to debtor; court explained Sweports was a Chapter 11 jurisdictional case and inapplicable to these Chapter 13 facts. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Trustee cited Marshall v. Johnson and applied it incorrectly to argue trustees could deduct fees here; court found Marshall inapplicable and mischaracterized its holding. || False Quotes: Case Law | Trustee included altered or misleading quotations from authority without indicating alterations; court flagged misleading/modified quotations as one of the brief's deficiencies. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Trustee cited a Bankruptcy Rule that does not exist (non-existent rule identified in Figure 3 of the decision); court listed this as a fabricated legal norm in the brief.

Judges:

AI-related case

Henry County Schools et al. v. Grant et al.

CA Georgia · Jurisdiction not recorded · Jun 10, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs' counsel-drafted trial court order relied on at least one hallucinated (fabricated) case citation; appellate court identified and rejected reliance on the fabricated citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The order also misquoted and misrepresented binding cases in multiple instances, undermining the analysis.

Judges:

AI-related case

State of Iowa ex rel J.G. v. Mynesia A. Anderson

Iowa Court of Appeals · Iowa · Jun 10, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple fabricated case citations throughout the briefs such that the court could not separate legitimate authorities from hallucinations. || False Quotes: Case Law | Briefs contained direct quotations attributed to at least eight appellate decisions; the quoted text does not appear in those decisions. || Fabricated: Case Law | Briefs cited two Iowa cases that do not exist; the reporter citations provided correspond to unrelated cases from other states.

Judges: Tyler J. Buller

AI-related case

LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · New York · Jun 9, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Struck motions contained hallucinated, non-existent case citations asserted as authority; court found no real authority supporting the arguments. || Fabricated: Case Law | Filings contained non-existent quotations attributed to cases (fabricated quotations) that could not be verified by the court. || Fabricated: Other | Documents exhibited formatting identical to AI output and included remnants of drafting prompts, indicating AI-generated submissions.

Judges: Dale Edwin Ho

AI-related case

Casey A. Gaddy v. Wood Brothers Bar, Inc., et al.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2026

Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Repeated citation to a Baldwin text message that does not exist in the record; Court found the communication fabricated by plaintiff. || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff claimed Esser texted that she was 'coming back to close' on disputed nights; Court found no such text in the record and labeled it an invention. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff misattributed a text (quoted as from Gillespie) that was actually sent by Esser; Court corrected the attribution and rejected the plaintiff's inference based on it. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff purported to quote Tomasso v. Boeing for language about an inadequately informed decision; Court noted Tomasso contains no such quote and the citation was inaccurate. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff claimed Woody’s president 'explicitly' said video surveillance was available when fired; Court found this was a misrepresentation of the Weiss interview (Weiss said only there was proof of receipts and dispute notifications).

Judges: Gerald John Pappert