How courts and legislatures are treating Artificial Intelligence — case tracker, analysis, and India angle.
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Nelson L Bruce v. The, examining whether AI-generated content in court submissions met professional standards. The decision adds to the growing body of case law holding lawyers accountable for unverified AI-generated citations and arguments.
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Walder v. Experian, examining whether AI-generated content in court submissions met professional standards. The decision adds to the growing body of case law holding lawyers accountable for unverified AI-generated citations and arguments.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court published a decision in a car loan dispute where court submissions contained AI/LLM-generated citations to cases that do not exist. The Westlaw annotation explicitly identifies large language model (LLM) hallucinations as the source, marking one of the first state appellate courts to use that specific terminology.
A Northern District of California court sanctioned a pro se plaintiff after she cited fictitious cases — and then submitted a false explanation to the court, claiming the fabricated citations resulted from ‘editing errors.’ The court found this explanation ‘simply not credible’ and that the plaintiff exacerbated her Rule 11 breach by certifying the fictitious cases as real.
The Bombay High Court awarded adverse costs against a litigant after counsel submitted a legal brief containing multiple AI-hallucinated citations — cases that simply did not exist. The court held that relying on fabricated precedent without verification constituted a breach of professional duty, and that judges’ time is too valuable to be wasted correcting lawyers’ AI-generated errors.
Texas’s Seventh Court of Appeals upheld $14,271.25 in attorney’s fees against a pro se plaintiff whose AI-generated brief cited non-existent cases and contained fabricated quotations from real cases, with the trial court having already warned her that AI use does not excuse misrepresentations.
A Western District of Oklahoma court denied a plaintiff’s motion in limine after finding that cited Tenth Circuit cases did not support the propositions for which they were cited — a pattern consistent with AI-generated mischaracterization. The court warned that such mischaracterizations, whether fr
Pro se plaintiffs in a cryptocurrency credit line dispute cited a repealed Indiana statute and a nonexistent Seventh Circuit case — prompting a judicial warning that AI may have assisted the filings. No sanctions, but the court explicitly invoked the Seventh Circuit’s AI accuracy warning.
Texas’s Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed a foreclosure judgment and separately identified that a citation in the appellants’ reply brief appeared to be a hallucinated case from this court that could not be located after extensive research.
Gregory Hardy filed the same AI-hallucinated motion to consolidate in Hardy v. Jones as he had in his other cases, repeating fake quotations from Berndt v. Tennessee and United States v. Frazier. The court struck the motion and issued a final warning: the next instance of fabricated citations or imp