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
8 cases found · 10 maximum per page
AI-related case
Owens v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · New York · Jun 4, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed two citations were not to decisions at all (i.e., fabricated or non-existent authorities); defendant pointed this out. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court noted at least four cited cases do not include the language the plaintiff purports to quote; defendant identified these inaccurate quotations.
Judges: Ann Marie Donnelly
AI-related case
Polanco v. Himalayan Real Estate LLC, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · New York · May 27, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent U.S. Supreme Court opinion, "Moore v. Alliance Credit Union," claiming it held foreclosures based on fiat currency unconstitutional; the Court found the opinion fictitious and warned against citing fake authorities.
Judges: Hector Gonzalez
AI-related case
Terrance Anthony Norris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · New York · May 6, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cites a non-existent case, GAI Consultants, Inc. v. Homestead Vill. Ltd. P’ship, 961 F. Supp. 1437 (E.D. Pa. 1997); Court notes the opinion does not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributes a quotation to Diesel Props S.r.l. v. Greystone Bus. Credit II LLC, 631 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2011) that does not appear in that opinion; Court identifies the quotation as nonexistent. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributes a quotation to Dalton v. Educ. Testing Serv., 87 N.Y.2d 384, 394 (1995) that does not exist in that opinion; Court identifies the quotation as nonexistent.
Judges: Hector Gonzalez
AI-related case
1S REO Opportunity 1, LLC v. 223 Howard LLC
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · New York · Feb 3, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Gustavia Home, LLC v. Rice, 2020 WL 4917915 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2020), a Westlaw citation that does not exist; the number corresponds to Durrett v. IKO Indus., Inc. (Ky. Ct. App.), and the actual Gustavia Rice decision cited by court is 2016 WL 6683473 which states the opposite proposition.
Judges: Pamela Ki Mai Chen
AI-related case
Farrow v. John Does
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · New York · Dec 3, 2025
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent decision; the court identified the citation as to a case that does not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a venue rule to In re Aggrenox that does not appear in that opinion; the court noted the case does not analyze venue. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff claimed Martinez v. Bloomberg held that a court on a venue challenge "assumes the truth of the plaintiff's factual allegations," which the court said Martinez did not state. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Nat'l Acad. of Television Arts & Scis. for a venue principle the opinion did not analyze; the court observed the cited opinion contains no such venue analysis.
Judges: Ann Marie Donnelly
AI-related case
Ramirez v. Humala
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · New York · May 13, 2025
AI UseA paralegal used public search tools and unspecified “AI-based research assistants” to generate legal citations. The resulting hallucinated cases were passed to Counsel, who filed them without verification. Four out of eight cited cases were found to be fictitious:London v. Polish Slavic Fed. Credit Union, No. 19-CV-6645Rosario v. 2022 E. Tremont Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., No. 21-CV-9010Paniagua v. El Gallo No. 3 Corp., No. 22-CV-7073Luna v. Gon Way Constr., Inc., No. 20-CV-893Ruling/SanctionThe court imposed a $1,000 sanction against Counsel and her firm. Counsel was ordered to serve the sanction order on her client and file proof of service. The court declined harsher penalties, crediting her swift admission, apology, and internal reforms.Key Judicial ReasoningThe court found subjective bad faith due to the complete absence of verification. It cited a range of other AI-related sanction decisions, underscoring that even outsourcing to a “diligent and trusted” paralegal is not a defense when due diligence is absent.
Judges: Rachel Peter Kovner