AI Abuse Court Cases

AI-related case

Ulish Kerry Terrace Booker, III v. U.S. Bank National Association

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · Connecticut · Aug 5, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Nonexistent case cited in the brief; Court could not locate the opinion or support in the reporter cited. || Fabricated: Case Law | Case citation in brief does not exist or points to unrelated reporter content. || False Quotes: Legal Norm | Appellant misquoted Rule 17(a); Court identified the quoted language as incorrect compared to the rule's actual wording. || False Quotes: Legal Norm | Appellant attributed a quotation to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b) that is actually from Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited U.S. Supreme Court case 'Mathews v. Dillon' does not exist at the provided citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited bankruptcy Lexis entry was nonexistent; Court could not find the reported decision. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation given with incorrect forum/locale; the cited opinion exists but not from the court/location claimed. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Case cited with incorrect court designation (wrong district) in appellant's table of authorities.

Judges: Vernon Dion Oliver

AI-related case

Barteca Holdings v. Tacobarn

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · Connecticut · Aug 4, 2026

False Quotes: Case Law | Misquoted language attributed to Ashcroft v. Iqbal; quoted terms and pin cites incorrect and did not match the cited pages. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a non-existent quotation to Landscape Forms; the opinion's wording differs from the quoted passage in the brief. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed language about an 'amorphous overall style' to Yurman; the cited page does not contain that phrasing. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Mischaracterized Streetwise Maps as addressing incontestability; the case does not address that issue as asserted in the brief. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Erroneous pin cite for the opinion discussing 1-800 CONTACTS and WARBY PARKER (brief cited page 251; correct citation should be pages 249–50). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Chambers as supporting judicial notice under FRE 201(b); Chambers does not contain that proposition as represented. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Mischaracterized Cortec as imposing a blanket rule that documents at Rule 12 may only be considered if plaintiff had notice and relied on them; Cortec's holding is narrower and contextual. || False Quotes: Case Law | Misquoted Fonte and Friedl…

Judges: Vernon Dion Oliver

AI-related case

Sorrentino v. Fay Servicing, LLC, et al.

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · Connecticut · Aug 4, 2026

Judges: Sarala Vidya Nagala

AI-related case

Christopher A. Ambrose v. Bandy X. Lee

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · Connecticut · Mar 31, 2026

Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Tyler v. Tyler to argue personal (in-hand) service is required in defamation actions; court found the citation inapposite and noted the misstatement. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited and relied on Martin v. Hearst Corp. and Hustler v. Falwell to support striking IIED claims; court found those authorities misread or inapplicable. || Misrepresented: Other | Court identified broader 'hallucinated legal propositions' in the briefing (unverified or severely misstated legal rules) and warned that such AI-assisted misstatements risk Rule 11 sanctions.

Judges: Sarala Vidya Nagala

AI-related case

Jacobs v. Payward, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · Connecticut · Mar 30, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "DOE V. SMITH, No. 3:22-cv-01987 (D. Conn. 2023)", which the Court determined to be a hallucinated (nonexistent) case citation and flagged as undermining the credibility of the filings.

Judges: Sarala Vidya Nagala

AI-related case

Raul Gonzales Davila v. Roblen

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · Connecticut · Feb 6, 2026

False Quotes: Case Law | Brief attributed a quotation to Pineda v. Frisolino that does not appear in that opinion; Court found the quoted language absent and that counsel relied on the false quote to support FLSA individual coverage. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted prior memorandum contained hallucinated AI-generated citations to non-existent cases in a related matter, which led Judge Hall to order show cause.

Judges: Stefan R. Underhill

AI-related case

Braica v. Frankowski (Anthony Braica v. Tom Frankowski)

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · Connecticut · Dec 15, 2025

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a wholly fabricated quotation to this real case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Case cited to support Eighth Amendment application to probationers though Solem concerned incarceration and is not relevant here. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited to support Eighth Amendment argument despite Graham involving incarceration rather than probation. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff misattributed a quotation to Moore and cited it in support of an Eighth Amendment argument though Moore addresses a Fourth Amendment apartment-search context. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Rochin to support an Eighth Amendment 'shocks the conscience' argument though Rochin concerns due process (Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments) and is not on point. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Steffel but that case addresses First and Fourteenth Amendment issues, not the Eighth. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misstated the holding; Jones concerns GPS attachment to a vehicle, not to a person as plaintiff asserted. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Hamilton for a sovereign-immunity point but failed to note Hamilton dismissed negligence claims as ba…

Judges: Vernon Dion Oliver

AI-related case

Jesse Andre v. Warden, FCI Danbury

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · Connecticut · Nov 25, 2025

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found 'Harriot v. Jamison' (cited to support BOP-policy arguments) does not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted language attributed to Levine v. Apker does not appear in that opinion and the case does not support the asserted proposition. || False Quotes: Case Law | Sierra quotation cited in the Motion was fabricated and does not exist in the Sierra opinion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Woodley v. Warden was cited as supporting a 'detainer-only bar' proposition the court found the case does not establish. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Perttu v. Richards was mischaracterized in substance and procedural posture relative to the petitioner's arguments. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Federal procedural rules (e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) and Habeas Rule 7) were mischaracterized as authorizing a petitioner to unilaterally expand the record after judgment. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Rivers v. Guerrero and Mayle v. Felix were cited for relation-back/record-expansion propositions the Court found they do not support.

Judges: Vernon Dion Oliver

AI-related case

Cojom v. Roblen

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · Connecticut · Nov 17, 2025

"The danger of Attorney Stich’s AI use is especially felt here because his opponent’s pro se status meant that there was not an adversary capable of calling the attention of the court to the phony citations. Furthermore, this court expended time and resources in investigating the hallucinated citations, resources that could have been better spent adjudicating the merits of this underlying litigation and that of other cases pending before this court. The oversight in submitting fake citations is more than just sloppy lawyering: it imperils the integrity of our judicial process.However, the court also acknowledges that our society sits on the precipice of rapid technological development and that the continued development of AI will fundamentally alter life as we know it. Just as the advent of the Internet in the late 20th century transformed the legal profession, and particularly legal research, so too will artificial intelligence. Indeed, the two biggest legal research databases, Westlaw and LexisNexis, have developed and continue to expand their own proprietary AI tools to assist legal practitioners in finding case law.2 This Order should not be construed as a Luddite attack on te…

Judges: Janet C. Hall

AI-related case

Moales v. Land Rover Cherry Hill

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut · Connecticut · Apr 30, 2025

AI UseThe court stated that “Moales may have used artificial intelligence in drafting his submissions,” citing widespread concerns over AI hallucination. It noted that several citations in his complaint and show-cause response were plainly incorrect or irrelevant. While Moales did not admit AI use, the court cited Strong v. Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs., 2025 WL 100904 (D. Neb.) and Mata v. Avianca to contextualize its concern.Hallucination DetailsCited Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185 (1976), and S.E.C. v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946) as supporting the existence of a federal common law fiduciary duty—an inaccurate legal proposition. The court characterized such misuses as “the norm rather than the exception” in Moales’s submissions. It stopped short of identifying all misused authorities but made clear that the inaccuracies were pervasive.Ruling/SanctionThe complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3). Moales was permitted to file an amended complaint by May 28, 2025, but was warned that future filings must be factually and legally accurate. The court declined to reach the venue issue or impose immediate sanctions but warned…

Judges: Vernon Dion Oliver