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
2 cases found · 10 maximum per page
AI-related case
Lnu v. Blanche
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · National federal courts · Jun 3, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a case that does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a case that does not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | Quotation attributed to Kamalthas does not appear in that opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Quotation attributed to Avendano-Hernandez does not appear in that opinion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Real cases were represented as supporting propositions they do not discuss (mischaracterization of holdings). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Real case cited for a point about affidavits when the opinion does not discuss affidavits. || Fabricated: Case Law | Additional fabricated citations identified in other briefs filed by the same attorney. || Fabricated: Case Law | Fabricated citations identified in another matter filed by the same attorney. || Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a case that does not exist; Court found the citation fabricated and replacement citation (Udo) did not support the claimed proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a second case that does not exist; Court found no plausible typographical explanation and replacement citation (Lai) did not support the original poi…
Judges: Carlos T. Bea, Danielle Jo Forrest, Richard A. Paez
Monetary Sanction; 6-month Suspension; Notification Requirement; Bar SuspensionParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Grant v. City of Long Beach
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · National federal courts · Mar 22, 2024
AI UseThe appellants’ lawyer submitted an opening brief riddled with hallucinated cases and mischaracterizations. The court did not directly investigate the technological origin but cited the systematic errors as consistent with known AI-generated hallucination patterns.Hallucination DetailsTwo cited cases were completely nonexistent. Additionally, a dozen cited decisions were badly misrepresented, e.g., Hydrick v. Hunter and Wall v. County of Orange were cited for parent–child removal claims when they had nothing to do with such issues.Ruling/SanctionThe Ninth Circuit struck the appellants' opening brief under Circuit Rule 28–1 and dismissed the appeal. The panel emphasized that fabricated citations and grotesque misrepresentations violate Rule 28(a)(8)(A) requirements for arguments with coherent citation support.
Judges: Holly Aiyisha Thomas, Roopali H. Desai
Striking of Brief + Dismissal of AppealParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ 