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
3 cases found · 10 maximum per page
AI-related case
Ng v. AmGuard Insurance Company, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · New York · Dec 29, 2025
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Greyhound-Thermalink, Inc. v. B.U.R. Realty Corp., 42 A.D.3d 319, 320 (N.Y. 1st Dep’t 2007)', which the Court's research found does not appear to exist; Court warned about AI-generated fake citations.
Judges: Gary L Stein
AI-related case
Zero Point MGMT v. Chase Bank/JP Morgan Chase Co.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · New York · Nov 24, 2025
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Weaver v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 680, 684 (2011)'; the Court's research found no such case and identified it as a fake citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Mendel, 894 F. Supp. 2d 107, 111 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)'; the Court found this case does not appear to exist. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250 (3d Cir. 1994) but the Court found the case exists and does not support the proposition cited—holding was mischaracterized.
Judges: Gary L Stein
Non-lawyer trustee barred from proceeding pro seParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Dukuray v. Experian Information Solutions
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · New York · Jul 26, 2024
AI UsePlaintiff, opposing motions to dismiss, filed a brief containing three fake federal case citations. Defendants raised the issue in their reply, suggesting use of ChatGPT or a similar tool. Plaintiff did not deny the accusation.Hallucination DetailsThree nonexistent cases were cited. Each cited case name and number was fictitious; none of the real cases matching those citations involved remotely related issues.Ruling/SanctionThe court issued a formal warning to Plaintiff: any future filings containing fabricated citations or quotations will result in sanctions, including striking of filings, monetary penalties, or dismissal. No sanction imposed for this first occurrence, acknowledging pro se status and likely ignorance of AI risks.Key Judicial ReasoningReliance on nonexistent precedent, even by pro se litigants, is an abuse of the adversarial system. The court cited Mata v. Avianca and Park v. Kim as establishing the principle that hallucinated case citations undermine judicial integrity and waste opposing parties’ and courts' resources. Plaintiff was formally warned, not excused.
Judges: Gary L Stein