AI Abuse Court Cases

AI-related case

Harris v. St. Peter Investors, LLC et al.

U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota · Minnesota · May 18, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Taylor v. City of Minneapolis, 202 F. Supp. 3d 933, 941–42 (D. Minn. 2016); the Court found this citation does not appear to exist and actually leads to an unrelated SD Indiana case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Berg v. Copeland, 2019 WL 1493461, at *5 (D. Minn. Apr. 4, 2019); the Court found this citation does not appear to exist and instead leads to an unrelated Colorado Court of Appeals case. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff provided a purported quotation attributed to Pfannenstiel Architects, Inc. v. Chouteau Petroleum Co.; the Court found the quoted language is not present in that opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff provided a purported quotation attributed to Johnson v. Dayton Elec. Mfg. Co.; the Court found the quoted language is not found in that opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff provided a purported quotation attributed to Stephenson v. El-Batrawi; the Court found the quoted language is not present in that opinion.

Judges: Laura Margarete Provinzino

AI-related case

Estate of Claxton

Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One · Arizona · May 18, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's briefing contained several fictitious or inaccurate case citations; court identified them as fictitious or inaccurate but did not list specific citations.

Judges: Randall M. Howe, Veronika Fabian

AI-related case

Herbert Brooks v. Lowes Home Centers LLC

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana · Louisiana · May 18, 2026

Order to show cause is here.

Judges: Jerry Edwards Jr.

AI-related case

Waggeh v. Utility Workers Union of America Local 1-2 et al.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · New York · May 16, 2026

Judges: Stewart D. Aaron

AI-related case

Bank of America v. Mapp

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · North Carolina · May 15, 2026

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Cited 28 U.S.C. § 1348 as broadly granting jurisdiction over any action by or against a bank; court found this to be a misrepresentation of the statute's scope. || Fabricated: Case Law | Filings contained citations to non-existent case law (fabricated citations); court noted such fabricated citations and referenced authorities sanctioning that conduct. || False Quotes: Case Law | Submitted fictitious quotations and misrepresentations of case law in briefing and attachments.

Judges: Thomas D. Schroeder

AI-related case

Brock et al. v. Hamilton County JFS Children Services et al.

S.D. Ohio · Jurisdiction not recorded · May 15, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Jansen v. City of Cincinnati, 904 F.3d 336, claiming it held that §1983 claims against child welfare workers for fabricating evidence are not barred by Rooker-Feldman; the Court found the citation incorrect (904 F.3d 336 corresponds to Gilkers v. Vannoy, a Fifth Circuit case) and that Jansen is 904 F.2d 336 (1990) and does not address child welfare or that holding.

Judges:

AI-related case

Nikko D’Ambrosio v. Meta Platforms Inc.

7th Cir. CA · Jurisdiction not recorded · May 15, 2026

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Brief quoted a definition of “personally identifiable information” and attributed it to Section 10 of the Doxing Act; the definition actually appears in Section 5 and the brief's wording was inaccurate. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Brief misstated the statutory standard for a Doxing Act violation by listing elements and wording not found in the statute (incorrectly stated the elements and standard for liability). || False Quotes: Case Law | Brief attributed a quoted standard from FTC v. Accusearch Inc. that does not appear in that opinion (the quoted phrase is fabricated). || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Brief claimed legislative findings for the Doxing Act included phrases like "amplified exposure and endangerment" and "cyber vigilantism" and referenced legislative findings that do not exist.

Judges:

AI-related case

Stringer v. White Cap Supply Holdings, LLC

M.D. Florida · Jurisdiction not recorded · May 14, 2026

False Quotes: Case Law | Court observed multiple mis-cites and incorrect quotations in Plaintiff's response, noting 'a mis-cite or incorrect quote here and there.' Court flagged these as unsupported or non-existent in the record. || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Court found the response 'repeatedly cites to facts and legal theories that do not exist on this record,' i.e., assertions of record facts and legal positions unsupported by exhibits or testimony. || Misrepresented: Other | Court characterized the response as containing widespread mischaracterizations of fact and law suggesting possible use of AI to generate or alter submissions.

Judges:

AI-related case

In the Matter of Janelle Melissa Lewis, an attorney and counselor-at-law

App. Div. 1st Dept (NY) · Jurisdiction not recorded · May 14, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent's draft brief contained numerous citations to non-existent cases; the U.S. District Court characterized those citations as hallucinations produced by ChatGPT or a similar AI.

Judges:

AI-related case

Oscar Danilo Montealto Garcia v. Todd Lyons, et al.

C.D. California · Jurisdiction not recorded · May 14, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Petition cites Sanchez-Perez v. Garland, 2023 WL 5663021, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2023), which the court indicates appears nonexistent.

Judges: