AI Abuse Court Cases

AI-related case

Philippeaux v. United States, et al.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · New York · Sep 8, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | The Court stated that Plaintiff cited an apparently nonexistent Second Circuit case in his opposition; the citation was part of the Court’s discussion of the filings’ confusion and supported its Rule 8 analysis. || Fabricated: Case Law | The Court stated that Plaintiff cited an apparently nonexistent District of Columbia case in his opposition; the citation was part of the Court’s discussion of the filings’ confusion and supported its Rule 8 analysis.

Judges: Mary Kay Vyskocil

AI-related case

Ashmeade v. Amazon.com Services LLC

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · New York · Aug 27, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited “In re State Street Bank and Trust Co. ERISA Litig., No. 07-cv-10907, 2009 WL 10260136, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2009)”; court found the Westlaw number and caption did not correspond to a real decision. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited “SEC v. Collins, No. 01-cv-3065, 2002 WL 31109065, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2002)”; court found no decision matching that Westlaw number or caption (noting a different SEC v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 256 F.R.D. 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) exists but with different citation).

Judges: Victoria Reznik

AI-related case

Fernando Justino Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon, et al.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · New York · Jul 31, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition brief contained citations and quoted authority that Defendants say do not exist; Court noted these appear to be fabricated case citations likely from AI.

Judges: Ronnie Abrams

AI-related case

Nirav Modi v. Richard Levin, Trustee for the Liquidating Trust of Firestar Diamond, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · New York · Jul 30, 2026

Misrepresented: Case Law | Trustee and Court identified multiple citations that, while often to existing cases, do not support the propositions asserted and appear AI-generated or inaccurately presented. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation to Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1983) invoked to support special solicitude to pro se prisoners, but the cited opinion's facts and holdings do not support that proposition as presented. || False Quotes: Case Law | Motion attributes a quotation to Cohen that does not appear in the cited opinion; Court found the quoted language absent from Cohen.

Judges: Analisa Nadine Torres

AI-related case

Cartagena v. Dixon, Blackburn, and T.A. Blackburn Law (2)

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · New York · Jul 10, 2026

The Court found that attorney Tyrone A. Blackburn repeatedly used quotation marks for language that does not appear in the cases he cited (including at least 17 instances) and defended that practice as paraphrase. Opposing counsel (Roc Nation) flagged these apparent AI-generated citation errors, and the Court independently verified the quotations. Citing prior orders and sanctions (including a $5,000 sanction in Jakes v. Youngblood), the Court concluded Blackburn's conduct evidenced a pattern of fabricating quotations, granted the motion to strike his filing, deemed the sanctions motion unopposed, and referred Blackburn to the Grievance Committee. The Court emphasized the obligation to accurately quote and cite authority and noted refusal to accept paraphrases presented as verbatim quotations.

Judges: Jennifer E. Willis

AI-related case

Jason Wimberly v. Verizon New York Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · New York · Jun 12, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent opinion (United States v. Chawla, 453 F. Supp. 3d 571 (E.D.N.Y. 2020)); the Court could not locate the case and found the citation instead led to United States v. Bedi, which did not support the cited proposition.

Judges: Laura Taylor Swain

AI-related case

LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · New York · Jun 9, 2026

Fabricated: Case Law | Struck motions contained hallucinated, non-existent case citations asserted as authority; court found no real authority supporting the arguments. || Fabricated: Case Law | Filings contained non-existent quotations attributed to cases (fabricated quotations) that could not be verified by the court. || Fabricated: Other | Documents exhibited formatting identical to AI output and included remnants of drafting prompts, indicating AI-generated submissions.

Judges: Dale Edwin Ho

AI-related case

Sana Hazina Butler v. Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · New York · May 22, 2026

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Rate Technology Inc. v. Speakeasy Inc.' with an incorrect citation and relied on it for a point; the actual case (Rates Tech. Inc. v. Speakeasy, Inc., 685 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2012)) concerns a settlement agreement and patent validity, not the cited proposition.

Judges: Robyn F. Tarnofsky

AI-related case

Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · New York · May 19, 2026

Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Defense Counsel cited a non-sourced authority "§ 3.01 Certification Is Crucial Step In Class Actions," which the Court found resulted from AI hallucination and lacked any identifiable source. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Defense Counsel repeatedly relied on OConner and Haider to argue that third-party communications could not be attributed to defendants; the Court found these cases irrelevant to the agency/attribution issue and thus misapplied.

Judges: Katherine Polk Failla

AI-related case

Waggeh v. Utility Workers Union of America Local 1-2 et al.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · New York · May 16, 2026

Judges: Stewart D. Aaron