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
Jorge A. Zea v. National Association of REALTORS
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · Florida · Mar 24, 2026
False Quotes: Case Law | Response contains fabricated quotations and paraphrases attributed to real cases across multiple pages; Court found quotations and legal concepts were fake and unreliable. || Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Advanced an AI-invented doctrinal claim that an association's 'concerted action' removes the need to plead a conspiracy or agreement; Court rejected this as invented law. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Included U.S. Anchor Manufacturing 'incorrectly' as support; Court noted the plaintiff acknowledged the inclusion was erroneous and that other cited cases were misapplied.
Judges: William Matthewman
AI-related case
Crespo v. Tesla, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · Florida · Jun 30, 2025
In the case of Crespo v. Tesla, Inc., the pro se plaintiff, Leonardo Crespo, submitted discovery motions containing fabricated case citations and a false quote, which were identified as potentially generated by AI. The court ordered Crespo to show cause for these submissions and admitted to using AI in his filings. The court acknowledged Crespo's candor and imposed sanctions requiring him to apologize to the defendant's counsel and pay reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the defendant in addressing the fake citations.(In a subsequent ruling, the court averred that the reasonable fees amount was 921 USD.)
Judges: William Matthewman
Plaintiff required to apologize and pay attorney's feesParty using AI: Self-representedRead the decision ↗ AI-related case
Versant Funding v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enterprises
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · Florida · May 20, 2025
AI UseFirst Counsel, who had not previously used AI for legal work, used an unspecified AI tool to assist with drafting a response. He failed to verify the citation before submission. Second Counsel, as local counsel, filed the response without checking the content or accuracy, even though he signed the document.Second Counsel then said that he had initiated "procedural safeguards to prevent this error from happening again by ensuring he, and local counsel, undertake a comprehensive review of all citations and arguments filed with this and every court prior to submission to ensure their provenance can be traced to professional non-AI sources."Hallucination DetailsThe hallucinated case was cited as controlling Delaware authority on privilege assignments. When challenged by Plaintiff, Defendants initially filed a bare withdrawal without explanation. Only upon court order did they disclose the AI origin and acknowledge the error. Counsel personally apologized to the court and opposing counsel.Ruling/SanctionJudge William Matthewman imposed a multi-part sanction:Attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff in rebutting the hallucinated citation—jointly payable by CounselRequired CL…
Judges: William Matthewman
Joint and several liability for Plaintiff’s attorneys' fees and costs incurred in addressing the hallucinated citation; CLE requirement on AI ethics; Monetary finesParty using AI: Represented by counselRead the decision ↗ 