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
Seifert v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho · Idaho · Feb 12, 2026
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "McGinnis v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 2013 WL 1282124 (D. Colo.)"; court found 2013 WL 1282124 is an appellate brief from Washington and not that case, and noted the real McGinnis decision appears at 2010 WL 3418204 (D. Utah Aug. 27, 2010).
Judges: David Charles Nye
AI-related case
Allen v. Experian Information Solutions
U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho · Idaho · Jan 4, 2026
False Quotes: Case Law | Court found quoted language attributed to Truckstop.net appeared fabricated and misrepresented the case's holdings; court admonished pro se litigant for relying on fabricated quotations. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found quoted language attributed to Blahd v. Richard B. Smith, Inc. appeared fabricated or misrepresented and cautioned against fabricated quotations.
Judges: B. Lynn Winmill
AI-related case
Chenco v. Do-Fluoride
U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho · Idaho · Aug 22, 2025
"Counsel should take seriously its obligation to provide the Court with an accurate description of the law. See, e.g., United States v. Hayes, 763 F. Supp. 3d 1054 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (levying $1,500 in monetary sanctions against counsel personally for fictitious cases and quotations that the court suspected were produced using artificial intelligence),reconsideration denied, No. 2:24-CR-0280-DJC, 2025 WL 1067323 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2025); Grant v. City of Long Beach, 96 F.4th 1255 (9th Cir. 2024) (striking an appellant's brief and dismissing an appeal for materially misrepresenting or fabricating case citations). After New Materials freely accused opposing counsel of misstating the law, New Materials’ submission of non-existent quotes is troubling (Dkt. 30 at 5 (“Chenco's argument for remand collapses under the weight of its own misreading of the law”); id.at 7 (“Chenco fundamentally misrepresents the applicable removal standard”); Dkt. 34 at 1 (“The proposed sur-reply ... is necessary to address new legal misstatements ....”); id. at 2-3 (“Chenco's failure to address this standard ... misstates controlling law and warrants correction.”)). Accordingly, the Court reminds counsel of th…
Judges: Amanda Kathleen Brailsford
Court denied defendant's motion for leave to file a surreply, admonished counsel for submitting non-existent quotations, and granted plaintiff's motion to remand.Party using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗