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
Nguedi v. General Dynamics Information Technology
D. DC · Jurisdiction not recorded · Mar 31, 2026
False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a nonexistent quotation to Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms; court found the quote does not appear in the decision and the case does not involve the stated proposition. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a nonexistent quotation and legal proposition to Figueroa v. Pompeo; court determined the quoted language and asserted topic do not appear in that decision. || False Quotes: Case Law | Cited Doe v. United States Postal Service as containing a holding about the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provision; court found the case contains no such quote and does not address that statute. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Mischaracterized Richardson v. United States as supporting a broad rule about granting leave to amend at late stages; court noted the cited opinion did not address that proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misstated the holding of Doe v. McMillan, citing it for a proposition the court says is the opposite of the actual holding.
Judges:
AI-related case
Christopher A. Ambrose v. Bandy X. Lee
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · Connecticut · Mar 31, 2026
Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Tyler v. Tyler to argue personal (in-hand) service is required in defamation actions; court found the citation inapposite and noted the misstatement. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited and relied on Martin v. Hearst Corp. and Hustler v. Falwell to support striking IIED claims; court found those authorities misread or inapplicable. || Misrepresented: Other | Court identified broader 'hallucinated legal propositions' in the briefing (unverified or severely misstated legal rules) and warned that such AI-assisted misstatements risk Rule 11 sanctions.
Judges: Sarala Vidya Nagala
AI-related case
Elbert Coleman, III; Elbert Coleman, IV v. Nexo Capital Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana · Indiana · Mar 31, 2026
Outdated Advice: Repealed Law | Plaintiffs cited "Indiana Code § 23-2-1-2" for the proposition that transactions involving unregistered securities are void; the court found the statute has been repealed. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited "Kramer v. Trans-Lux Corp., 24 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 1994)"; the court found no such Seventh Circuit opinion and noted a District of Connecticut decision with that name instead.
Judges: Matthew Paul Brookman
AI-related case
Federal Trade Commission v. James D. Noland, Jr., et al.
D. Arizona · Jurisdiction not recorded · Mar 31, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed Individual Defendants’ filings contained hallucinated or otherwise inaccurate case citations (no specific fabricated citations listed in the order).
Judges:
AI-related case
Feldman & Trost v. District 6 Board of Education
U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois · Illinois · Mar 31, 2026
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed the phrase "conduct of a sexual nature" to Rost v. Steamboat Springs RE-2 Sch. Dist.; the court found the case exists but the quoted language does not and the proposition cited was unsupported by the opinion. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a Seventh Circuit decision that does not appear to exist, relying on it for a legal proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs relied on Busse v. Motorola, Inc. for a theory of intrusion on seclusion, but the court found Busse inapposite and the reliance misplaced.
Judges: Colleen Rae Lawless
AI-related case
Ford v. Sherwin-Williams
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas · Kansas · Mar 31, 2026
The district court identified fabricated citations and quotations in the pro se plaintiff's filings (e.g., a cited Westlaw number and case caption that did not match the cited authority). The court suspected the citations were AI-generated, cautioned the plaintiff, and referenced D. Kan. Standing Order 26-01 warning of possible sanctions for fabricated or incorrect legal authority. No sanction was imposed in this Order.
Judges: Daniel Dale Crabtree
AI-related case
Leonard Colbert v. County of Riverside
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · California · Mar 31, 2026
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Opposition included a quoted purported provision of Cal. Gov't Code § 845.4 that the court could not locate in the statute or in any case; court suggested counsel may have used AI and failed to confirm accuracy. || Fabricated: Case Law | The opinion notes multiple citation references in the record that are incorrect or do not exist; Editor's Note removed links to those invalid citations.
Judges: Sheri N. Pym
AI-related case
Chelsea Montes v. Suns Legacy Partners LLC
D. Arizona · Jurisdiction not recorded · Mar 31, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Response to motion to dismiss included 'McIntyre v. Phx. Newspapers, Inc.' citation that was fabricated/mis-cited as filed. || Fabricated: Case Law | Reply in support of anonymity contained multiple 'Doe v. ...' citations (e.g., Amazon) presented with Westlaw/West reporter info that did not exist as cited and were removed or corrected. || Fabricated: Case Law | Reply included 'Doe v. Maricopa County Community College District, 2017 WL 4460441 (D. Ariz. Oct. 5, 2017)' that counsel could not identify as a real corresponding opinion; court treated it as fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Reply cited 'Doe v. Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp., 2022 WL 3447983 (E.D. Va. Aug. 17, 2022)' as authority; court found the citation was misreferenced/ fabricated as used. || Fabricated: Case Law | Initial complaint cited a non-existent case and parenthetical about Equal Pay Act plausibility; court found the citation fictitious. || Fabricated: Case Law | Response to motion to dismiss cited 'Pizzo v. City of Chandler' as a 2021 D. Ariz. opinion; court determined the citation was fabricated as presented. || False Quotes: Case Law | Filings contained quoted phrases attributed to A…
Judges:
Adverse Costs Order; CLE; NotificationAttribution unresolvedParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Nicole Olbera, et al. v. Tiara Sykes
CA Indiana · Jurisdiction not recorded · Mar 30, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellee's pro se brief included a citation to a seemingly non-existent case; the court noted the citation appeared to be fabricated and an editor's note removed links to invalid citations in the official opinion.
Judges:
