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
Pete v. Facebook Meta Platforms
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas · Texas · Oct 22, 2025
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the phrase "may not consider extraneous factors such as the plaintiff's poverty" to Franco v. Mabe Trucking Co.; the court found that quoted language is not in Franco and could not identify its source. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff misquoted Atlantic Marine; the court noted the misquote but found Atlantic Marine nonetheless supports giving forum-selection clauses controlling weight.
Judges: Marcia A. Crone
AI-related case
David R. Pete v. United States Department of Justice, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas · Texas · Oct 10, 2025
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a case in his objections that the court could not locate; plaintiff later claimed he had submitted authentic copies but attached none; the court concluded the citation was AI-generated and fake. || Fabricated: Case Law | A second case citation in the plaintiff's objections likewise could not be verified; the court found it to be an AI-hallucinated fake opinion and declined to rely on objections based on it.
Judges: Marcia A. Crone
Magistrate Judge's recommendation adopted; in forma pauperis denied; plaintiff ordered to pay $405 filing fee within 10 days or the case will be dismissed.Party using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas · Texas · Nov 25, 2024
AI UseMonk admitted using the Claude AI tool to draft a summary judgment opposition without adequately verifying the case citations or quotations. He later claimed to have attempted post-hoc verification through Lexis AI but did not correct the errors until after a judicial show cause order.Hallucination DetailsCited two completely nonexistent cases. Also fabricated quotations attributed to real cases, including Morales v. SimuFlite, White v. FCI USA, Burton v. Freescale, among others. Several "quotes" did not appear anywhere in the cited opinions.Ruling/SanctionThe court imposed a $2,000 fine, ordered Monk to complete at least one hour of CLE on generative AI in legal practice, and mandated formal disclosure of the sanctions order to his client. It also permitted amendment of the defective filing but warned of the severity of the misconduct.Key Judicial ReasoningThe court emphasized that attorneys remain personally responsible for the verification of all filings under Rule 11, regardless of technology used. Use of AI does not dilute the duty of candor. Continued silence and failure to rectify errors after opposing counsel flagged them exacerbated the misconduct.
Judges: Marcia A. Crone
Monetary fine + Mandatory AI-related CLE Course + Disclosure to ClientParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ 