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
Oscar Brownfield v. Cherokee County School District No. 35
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma · Oklahoma · Mar 19, 2026
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendants identified eight cited cases in Plaintiff's Sanctions Motion as non-existent (AI-generated fictitious cases); Court found submission of fictitious cases violated Rule 11. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Several other cited authorities did not stand for the legal propositions cited or did not contain the quoted language, i.e., misrepresented/inaccurate case authority generated by AI.
Judges: Gerald L. Jackson
AI-related case
Mattox v. Product Innovation Research
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma · Oklahoma · Oct 22, 2025
The Court found 28 false or misleading citations across 11 pleadings (14 fabricated, 14 erroneous/misquoted). Mr. Howie admitted use of ChatGPT and failure to verify citations. The Court applied Rule 11(b) and its AI framework (verification, candor/correction, accountability) and imposed sanctions and restitution. Fines of 3,000, 2,000, and 1,000 USD on individual attorneys, plus opposing party's costs and fees,
Judges: Jason A. Robertson
Pleadings struck; public reprimands; monetary sanctions; remedial filing and certification requirementsParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Lowery Wilkinson Lowery, LLC, et al. v. State of Illinois, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma · Oklahoma · Jul 31, 2025
The court found multiple filings and exhibits from the plaintiffs to be fabricated or misleading (including a forged email and a fabricated news-image) and that plaintiffs repeatedly misrepresented legal authority (e.g., falsely attributing authorship of McGirt). The court relied on these findings in its Rule 11/§1927/inherent-power sanctions analysis, granted sanctions, dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, and set a hearing to determine reasonable attorneys' fees.
Judges: Ronald A. White
