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

9 cases found · 10 maximum per page

AI-related case

Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. STI-NY, LLC

New York County Supreme Court · New York · May 28, 2026

Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendants cited Citibank, N.A. v Velazquez, 150 AD3d 813, 814 [2d Dept 2017], but the correct authority is Citibank, N.A. v Wood, 150 AD3d 813, 814 [2d Dept 2017]; court rejected the miscitation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendants cited Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Guevara, 137 AD3d 460, 461 [1st Dept 2016], but the proper citation is D. Penguin Bros. Ltd. v Natl. Black United Fund, Inc., 137 AD3d 460, 461 [1st Dept 2016]; court found the citation does not support defendants' proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendants cited 'Fidelity Natl. Title, Ins. Co. v Valtech Research, Inc., 73 AD3d 521, 522 [1st Dept 2010]' which yielded no results; Westlaw/Lexis correct the cite to Popowich v Korman, 73 AD3d 515, 522 [1st Dept 2010]. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendants cited Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Russo, 121 AD3d 506, 507 [1st Dept 2014] for a proposition not found in the reported decision; the court identified the actual decision as Sari v Alishaev Bros., Inc., 121 AD3d 506 [1st Dept 2014] which does not support defendants' claim. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendants cited OneWestBank, FSB v Kanapathipillai, 188 AD3d 982, 9…

Judges: Lyle E. Frank

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

AI-related case

DOE, J. et al v. The Trustees of Columbia University

New York County Supreme Court · New York · May 5, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioners' papers included fabricated case citations generated by AI; opposing counsel pointed them out and counsel withdrew and apologized.

Judges: Lyle E. Frank

Counsel apologizedParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Drip Capital, Inc. v. SGM Socher Inc.

New York County Supreme Court · New York · May 1, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Defense counsel cited "Gildea v Sheridan" in the opposition brief; the court found no such case and treated it as an AI-generated fabrication. || Fabricated: Case Law | Defense counsel cited "Jones Wolf Realty v 2 E. 79th St. Corp." in the opposition brief; the court found no such case and treated it as an AI-generated fabrication.

Judges: Jennifer G. Schecter

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

AI-related case

Wurtenberg v. The City of New York

New York County Supreme Court · New York · Jan 12, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's papers relied on non-existent legal authority (fabricated cases); court found these authorities did not exist and attributed them to misuse of generative AI. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited several existing cases that the court found did not stand for the propositions for which they were cited (misrepresented precedent).

Judges: James E. d'Auguste

WarningParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Labatt USA Operating v. Friends Beverage Group

New York County Supreme Court · New York · Dec 30, 2025

By interim order dated March 17, 2025 the court struck defendants' opposition and cross-motion after finding the filings, drafted with AI, contained hallucinated (fabricated) case citations. The court treated the motion as unopposed thereafter.

Judges: Nancy M. Bannon

Filings struckParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Wheat v. Vichie

New York County Supreme Court · New York · Nov 3, 2025

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's papers cite 'Sosnovska v. Belle World Beauty, Inc.' as a First Department decision; the court found the case to be non-existent and warned that further false representations could result in sanctions. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's papers cite 'Sosnovska v. Belle World Beauty, Inc.' as a Second Department decision; the court found the citation likewise fictional and cautioned the pro se litigant. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's papers included two citations to an apparently non-existent case, Sosnovska v. Belle World Beauty, Inc., cited as both a First Department and a Second Department case; the Court identified these as fictional. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff repeatedly misstated the holdings of cited authorities in his filings; the Court noted multiple instances of mischaracterized case holdings.

Judges: Lyle E. Frank

WarningParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Anderson v. Akam Associates, Inc.

New York County Supreme Court · New York · Oct 27, 2025

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Matter of Oppenheimer v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 457 [1st Dept 1993]'; the Court reviewed and confirmed no such case exists and that the intended case did not support plaintiff's proposition.

Judges: Lyle E. Frank

Upcoming SanctionsParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Ader v Ader

New York County Supreme Court · New York · Oct 1, 2025

"This case adds yet another unfortunate chapter to the story of artificial intelligence misuse in the legal profession. Here, Defendants' counsel not only included an AI-hallucinated citation and quotations in the summary judgment brief that led to the filing of this motion for sanctions, but also included multiple new AIhallucinated citations and quotations in Defendants' brief opposing this motion. In other words, counsel relied upon unvetted AI—in his telling, via inadequately supervised colleagues—to defend his use of unvetted AI."

Judges: Joel M. Cohen

Costs Order; Referral to Bar AuthoritiesParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗

AI-related case

Fora Financial Asset Securitization v. Teona Ostrov Public Relations

New York County Supreme Court · New York · Jan 24, 2025

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant’s reply papers cited non-existent cases; the Court struck those citations and their propositions. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendant’s reply papers included citations that led to different cases than represented; the Court struck them. || False Quotes: Case Law | Defendant’s reply papers quoted language that does not appear in any cited case; the Court struck the quotation and its proposition.

Judges: Lyle E. Frank

WarningParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗