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
Falkenstein v. Niles
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · California · Sep 3, 2026
False Quotes: Case Law | The motion placed in quotation marks language attributing personal trademark-infringement liability to an individual who was the “moving, active conscious force behind the [defendant’s] infringement.” The Court stated that Yost does not contain that language and instead says an officer may be liable for torts he “authorizes or directs or in which he participates.” || Misrepresented: Case Law | The motion attributed to Cumulus Media a successor-in-interest priority proposition that the Court could not locate in the cited pages, which principally address abandonment. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | The reply represented that Complaint paragraph 21 alleged that Niles engaged musicians for specific shows, selected the band name, and organized and controlled the enterprise. The Court found those allegations were not in paragraph 21 and noted that “engaged” did not appear there. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The reply relied on the absence of partnership documents while citing Barr, although Barr states that “[f]ormalities of quasi-corporate organization are not required.” || False Quotes: Case Law | The preliminary-injunction opposition attributed a…
Judges: Stanley Blumenfeld Jr.
AI-related case
Flowz Digital v. Caroline Dalal
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · California · May 5, 2025
In their Response to the Order to show Cause, Counsel specified that they used Lexis+AI, and stressed that "LexisNexis itself has publicly emphasized the reliability of its Lexis+ AI platform, marketing it as providing “hallucination-free legal citations” specifically to avoid citation errors."Case was eventually jointly dismissed.
Judges: Stanley Blumenfeld Jr.
AI-related case
Mortazavi v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · California · Oct 30, 2024
AI UsePlaintiff’s counsel admitted using generative AI to draft a motion to remand without independently verifying the legal citations or the factual accuracy of quoted complaint allegations.Hallucination DetailsCited a fabricated case (details of the specific case name not listed in the ruling). Included fabricated quotations from the complaint, suggesting nonexistent factual allegations.Ruling/SanctionThe Court imposed a $2,500 sanction payable by December 30, 2024. Counsel was also required to notify the California State Bar of the sanction and file proof of notification and payment. The Court recognized mitigating factors (health issues, post-hoc corrective measures) but stressed the seriousness of the violations.Key Judicial ReasoningRule 11 requires attorneys to conduct a reasonable inquiry into both facts and law. Use of AI does not diminish this duty. Subjective good faith is irrelevant: violations occur even without intent to deceive. AI-generated filings must be reviewed with the same rigor as traditional submissions.
Judges: Stanley Blumenfeld Jr.
$2,500 Monetary Sanction + Mandatory Disclosure to California State BarParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ 