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

Case screener

Find an AI-related case

1,395 cases found · 10 maximum per page

AI-related case

Kevin Lee Biglow v. Dell Technologies Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · National federal courts · Mar 24, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Burton v. Ghosh, 961 F.3d 1084, 1092 (7th Cir. 2020)'; the court determined the citation does not correspond to that case and is a fabrication. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Iseminger v. Dist. Ct., 915 F.2d 1314 (10th Cir. 1990)' and 'Affolder v. Johnson, 53 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 1995)'; court found these reporter citations lead to different, unrelated opinions and treated them as fabrications. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Bentley v. United States, 41 F.3d 593, 604 (10th Cir. 1994)' and 'Clean Boat v. United States, 833 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2016)'; court found the pin cites lead to different actual cases and treated them as fabricated or mis-cited. || Fabricated: Case Law | Several fabricated citations in Biglow's motions (e.g., Paula Denogean, Young v. Nationstar, Singleton v. Wulff, In re Delta/Airtran, Saxena v. Allen, Jones v. State of Colorado) were identified by the court as non-existent or incorrect. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quote about opposing counsel preying on pro se ignorance to Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840; the court found no such language in Garrett. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Rick…

Judges: Bobby Ray Baldock

WarningParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Jorge A. Zea v. National Association of REALTORS

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · Florida · Mar 24, 2026

False Quotes: Case Law | Response contains fabricated quotations and paraphrases attributed to real cases across multiple pages; Court found quotations and legal concepts were fake and unreliable. || Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Advanced an AI-invented doctrinal claim that an association's 'concerted action' removes the need to plead a conspiracy or agreement; Court rejected this as invented law. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Included U.S. Anchor Manufacturing 'incorrectly' as support; Court noted the plaintiff acknowledged the inclusion was erroneous and that other cited cases were misapplied.

Judges: William Matthewman

WarningParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Segui v. Moniz

D. Arizona · Jurisdiction not recorded · Mar 24, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs' counsel cited a nonexistent Arizona appellate decision 'Barker v. Brown & Brown, 210 Ariz. 321, 110 P.3d 1011 (Ct. App. 2005)'; the Court found the citation fabricated, noted the legal proposition was incorrect, and ordered counsel to show cause under Rule 11.

Judges:

Order to Show CauseAttribution unresolvedParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Jane Doe, et al. v. Lincoln Consolidated Schools, et al.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · Michigan · Mar 23, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a non-existent case string "Doe v. Univ. of Mich., No. 18-11914, 2019 WL 11793988, at *8 (E.D. Mich., Aug. 6, 2019)"; the Court could not locate the authority, characterized it as an AI‑hallucinated/"Frankenstein" citation, and ordered counsel to reimburse defendants for research costs.

Judges: Brandy Renée McMillion

Adverse Costs OrderParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Gregory Hardy v. K. Jones, et al.

E.D. Michigan · Jurisdiction not recorded · Mar 23, 2026

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the phrase "reason to believe" to Berndt v. Tennessee; the court found the Berndt opinion does not contain that language nor address the claimed issue. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the phrase "amateur psychologist" to United States v. Frazier; the court found that phrase does not appear in Frazier and the criminal case does not address the motion's issues.

Judges:

WarningAttribution unresolvedParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Nicholas and Barbara Moulder v. Davis School District (on behalf of M.M.)

U.S. District Court for the District of Utah · Utah · Mar 23, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs' briefing cited a non-existent case as legal authority; court found the case did not exist and counsel admitted failing to verify after using AI. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs' briefing cited a second non-existent case as legal authority; court determined it was fabricated and counsel accepted responsibility for not verifying. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs' briefing included a non-existent quotation attributed to authority; court determined the quote did not exist and was not verified by counsel after use of AI.

Judges: Ted Stewart

CLE; Monetary SanctionParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Endure Industries, Inc. v. Defense Health Agency

ASBCA · Jurisdiction not recorded · Mar 23, 2026

Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited PGBA, LLC v. United States to argue procurement structure favored incumbents and rendered participation illusory; Board noted PGBA is a bid protest decision about award protest procedures and does not support Endure's contract argument. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Russell Corp. v. United States as if it held that an implied-in-fact contract existed when government directed procurement terms; Board noted Russell in fact found no contract and ruled against the contractor. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a nonexistent decision, "BMS, Inc. v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 33 (1987)"; Board found the case does not exist and that the nearby reporter citation corresponds to Johns-Manville, which does not support Endure's asserted propositions. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Attributed supportive legal statements to the fake BMS citation and to Johns-Manville that were actually either dicta or derived from the contractor's proposed findings; Johns-Manville ultimately ruled against the contractor. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena to support that the government cannot impose procurement controls while denying a contr…

Judges:

WarningAttribution unresolvedParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Stafford v. Andrew Taffet, et al.

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon · Oregon · Mar 23, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited 'Campbell v. MERS, 2012 WL 3901716, at *5 (D. Or.)'; the court confirmed no such Oregon federal case exists (only an unrelated Texas state decision and the Oregon docket number corresponded to a different case). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited 'Tucker v. HSBC, 2014 WL 431965, at *5 (C.D. Cal. 2014)'; the court confirmed no such C.D. Cal. decision exists under that citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited 'Galindo v. Financial Freedom, 2020 WL 3619048, at *5 (C.D. Cal. 2020)' (and variants); the court confirmed no such case exists and the provided citation actually corresponds to unrelated union pension litigation in the S.D.N.Y. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited 'McGinnis v. MERS, No. 6:11-cv-06273-TC (D. Or. Aug. 17, 2011)'; the court confirmed no such Oregon federal case exists with that number or name. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited 'Schweitzer v. FHLMC, No. 3:13-cv-0181, 2013 WL 4279629 (D. Or. Aug. 29, 2013)'; the court confirmed no such Oregon federal case exists and the provided case number corresponded to a Social Security appeal.

Judges: Ann L. Aiken

Party using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Couvrette v. Wisnovsky

D. Oregon · Jurisdiction not recorded · Mar 23, 2026

Order to show cause is here. Final judgment on costs is here. Final Opinion and Order is here. (Defendants prevailed partly because brief full of hallucinated material had been struck.)

Judges:

Briefs struck; Monetary sanction (15.5k); Adverse costs order (94.7k); claims dismissed with prejudiceAttribution unresolvedParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

State v. Coleman

Eleventh District Court of Appeals · Ohio · Mar 20, 2026

"{¶133} This case illustrates the peril. An attorney who, by his own counsel’s admission, was sophisticated in his understanding of AI tools permitted a non-attorney staff member to use a public generative AI platform to prepare an appellate filing. The AI tool fabricated transcript quotations—attributing specific, inflammatory statements to a real prosecutor that were never spoken. The attorney filed the document without verifying its contents. When the fabrications were identified, he did not correct the record. He appealed this court’s denial of the tainted application to the Supreme Court of Ohio without disclosing the fabrications. He proffered an AI policy that itself appeared to have been generated by AI, complete with unfilled placeholder brackets. Two months after a sanctions hearing, a filing in another court bore the unmistakable hallmarks of unchecked AI output, including a ChatGPT prompt embedded in the text of a legal brief.{¶134} This court does not write to condemn the use of artificial intelligence in the practice of law. To the contrary, this court recognizes that AI is an inevitable and potentially beneficial feature of modern legal practice. But the use of AI d…

Judges: Eugene A. Lucci, John J. Eklund, Robert J. Patton

Monetary Sanction; Bar Referral; Counsel disqualified in this case; Order to notify the judgment in other cases; CLE; Letter of apologyParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗