AI Abuse Court Cases
Search 1,395 source-linked cases involving fabricated citations and other AI-generated legal errors.
837 judge-case associations across 551 judges and 164 courts.
Source: Damien Charlotin
1,395Cases
837Judge-case associations
551Judges
164Courts
1,395 cases found · 10 maximum per page
AI-related case
Ward v. Amazon.com Services LLC
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · Washington · Apr 3, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Gile v. Dolgen Cal., LLC, 2023 WL 2669812, at *3 (9th Cir. 2023) (unpublished)'; Court could not locate a case at that citation and found a different Gile decision (2022 WL 17248087) that did not support Plaintiff's waiver argument. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Britton v. Co-op Banking Grp., 4 F.4th 742 (9th Cir. 2021)'; Court could not locate that citation, instead identifying older Britton decisions with different citations and holdings, concluding the cited authority was nonexistent or misrepresented.
Judges: Kymberly Kathryn Evanson
AI-related case
Kevin D. Turnage v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., et al.
D. Arizona · Jurisdiction not recorded · Apr 2, 2026
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff purports to quote 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b) for a 180-day decision requirement, but that language does not appear; court notes the correct provision is likely 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(e)(2). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Gao v. United States, 2019 WL 11199934 (D. Ariz. Oct. 23, 2019); the Court was unable to locate this case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Miller v. United States, 2009 WL 1532834 (D. Ariz. Apr. 30, 2009); the Court was unable to locate this case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on 'Yomi v. United States Dept. of Health & Human Services, 970 8754 (D. Kan. 2022),' which the Court could not locate and treated as a fictitious citation. || Fabricated: Other | Court observed the plaintiff cited additional unlocatable or fictitious authorities beyond those specifically identified.
Judges:
AI-related case
Stanford v. Leinart
Texas 2nd Court of Appeals · Texas · Apr 2, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a nonexistent opinion "Anderson v. Hood" in his brief; the court found the citation fabricated and likely AI-generated and admonished that citation of nonexistent cases is unacceptable.
Judges: Bonnie Sudderth, Brian Walker, Dana Womack
AI-related case
Patrick Hrdlichka v. Samantha Bengston
Arkansas Court of Appeals · Arkansas · Apr 1, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited multiple non-existent cases; the court searched Arkansas Reports, S.W. Reporter, and databases and found the authorities were fictitious, relying on these fabricated citations in his arguments.
Judges: Mark Klappenbach
AI-related case
In the Interest of W.G., Minor Child
CA Iowa · Jurisdiction not recorded · Apr 1, 2026
Misrepresented: Case Law | AI attributed specific propositions of law to a cited case where those propositions did not appear (misattribution of holdings/authority). || Fabricated: Case Law | Petition included at least one citation to a nonexistent Iowa appellate decision; court found citation was fabricated and ordered disclosure.
Judges:
AI-related case
Hampton v. Lofton
CA Arizona (1d) · Jurisdiction not recorded · Mar 31, 2026
Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Father's opening brief asserted trial-court findings (e.g., Child showed 'persistent hostility toward Father', 'difficulty adjusting to custodial transitions', Father's evidence was 'self-serving', Mother was 'evasive and inconsistent') that do not appear in the superior court's order; the appellate court described these as hallucinated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Both Father's opening and reply briefs contained legal citations that the appellate court found either did not support his positions or 'appear to be fictitious', contrary to ARCAP 13 requirements.
Judges:
AI-related case
Jaii LeShawn Quinones v. Unknown Love, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri · Missouri · Mar 31, 2026
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 628 F.2d 346" for the proposition that arbitrary passport restrictions are unconstitutional; the Court found the reporter cite fabricated and the asserted holding incorrect (real case is Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 (2001), which does not say that). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Missouri ex rel. Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 817 S.W.2d 77 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)" and the Court found that citation does not exist as cited and does not support Plaintiff's proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Robinson v. Missouri Child Support Agency, 2021 WL 5437824 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021)" but the Court concluded the citation does not exist or does not support the asserted proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed to Haig v. Agee the proposition that "government-imposed passport restrictions must be justified by compelling evidence;" the Court explained Plaintiff's characterization is the opposite of the case's actual holding.
Judges: Sarah Elizabeth Pitlyk
AI-related case
Staley v. City of Elba, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama · Alabama · Mar 31, 2026
The court (adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation) observed that Plaintiff's filings included citations to cases and purported quotations that do not exist; Defendants pointed this out in their filing. The observation was noted but did not result in sanctions; the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Judges: Bill Lewis
