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
6 cases found · 10 maximum per page
AI-related case
Catarina Almeida Porfirio v. Homeland Security, et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition brief cites 'Ravenell v. Van Buren, 2019 WL 6619363 (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 2019)'; the government could not locate the case and the Court also could not find it. || Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition brief cites 'Hand & Hand, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 21 F. Supp. 3d 8 (D.D.C. 2014)'; the Court was unable to locate this authority. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief mischaracterizes and misstates holdings (e.g., describes this Court's Wolfram decision as 'denying transfer' though Wolfram transferred the case). || False Quotes: Other | Some quotations used in the opposition brief could not be located or verified by the Court.
Judges: Rudolph Contreras
AI-related case
Zavadovsky v. Republic of Austria, et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2026
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed a fabricated quotation to United States v. Microsoft Corp.; the court found the quotation to be fake. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a fabricated quotation attributed to Apotex, Inc. v. FDA; the court identified the quotation as fake. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Thomas v. Patton with a quotation the court found to be fabricated or falsely attributed. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Young v. District of Columbia, 752 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010), which the court determined does not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed a fake quotation to Miller v. Fortune Ins. Co.; the court flagged the quotation as false. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs misrepresented the holding of Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran; the court noted the mischaracterization. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs misrepresented the holding of Wheat v. United States; the court observed the misrepresentation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited Beaucage v. Beaucage, 583 So.2d 846 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), a case the court found to be nonexistent.
Judges: Rudolph Contreras
AI-related case
Ekeocha v. U.S. Department of State
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2025
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's Opposition cites "Litvin v. Blinken, 93 F.4th 1162, 1168 (D.C. Cir. 2024)", which the Court found does not appear to exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff's Opposition attributes a quotation to Nine Iraqi Allies... v. Kerry, 168 F. Supp. 3d 268, 289 (D.D.C. 2016) that does not appear in that opinion.
Judges: Rudolph Contreras
AI-related case
Alexandria Jones v. DC Office of Unified Communications
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · District of Columbia · Oct 22, 2025
False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel attributed quotations to cases that do not contain the quoted material; the court observed these nonexistent quotations and linked them to apparent AI reliance.
Judges: Rudolph Contreras
AI-related case
N-BAR Trade v. Amazon
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · District of Columbia · Oct 22, 2025
False Quotes: Case Law | Opposing party (Amazon) could not locate several quotations cited in Plaintiffs' Opposition; court found the quotations do not actually appear in the cases attributed and warned counsel against submitting nonexistent quotations. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed increasing reliance on AI leading to nonexistent citations and noted Plaintiffs' filing contained citations/quotations that appear fabricated or nonexistent; court advised counsel this is unacceptable and may prompt sanctions if case returns.
Judges: Rudolph Contreras
AI-related case
Williams v. Capital One Bank
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · District of Columbia · Mar 18, 2025
AI UseWhile not formally admitted, Plaintiff’s opposition brief referred to “legal generative AI program CoCounsel,” and the court noted that the structure and citation pattern were consistent with AI-generated output. Capital One was unable to verify several case citations, prompting the court to scrutinize the submission.Hallucination DetailsAt least one case was fully fabricated, and another was a real case misattributed to the wrong jurisdiction and reporter. The court emphasized that it could not determine whether the mis-citations were the result of confusion, poor research, or hallucinated AI output—but the burden rested with the party filing them.Ruling/SanctionThe court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, noting Plaintiff had already filed and withdrawn a prior version and had had full opportunity to amend. Though it did not impose monetary sanctions, it issued a strong warning and directed Plaintiff to notify other courts where he had similar pending cases if any filings included erroneous AI-generated citations.
Judges: Rudolph Contreras
Case dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. No monetary sanction imposed, but the court issued a formal warningParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗ 