How courts and legislatures are treating Artificial Intelligence — case tracker, analysis, and India angle.
Joshua Harris filed a Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuit and proceeded to submit fabricated AI-generated citations in four separate filings across three show cause hearings. After being warned repeatedly and given multiple opportunities to comply, he admitted at a hearing that dismissal was an approp
Maryland’s Appellate Court issued an extraordinary editorial note confirming that an official custody opinion contained AI-generated fake citations that have been preserved in the record as written; the court affirmed father’s sole custody despite the embedded legal errors.
Ohio’s 11th Appellate District sanctioned criminal defense attorney William Norman after he filed an application to reopen a murder conviction citing prosecutor quotes that never appeared in the trial record. Admitting under oath, Norman attributed the fabrications to AI use, receiving a public repr
Pro se plaintiffs in Maryland filed 7 motions in 3 weeks and 40 pages in a single day — a volume the court identified as likely AI-generated — while also citing a nonexistent case. The court imposed a 4-page filing limit and threatened a filing injunction.
A pro se plaintiff in Louisiana received a $500 Rule 11 sanction after filing multiple briefs with AI-fabricated citations — continuing the pattern even after a court warning, self-audit order, and show-cause hearing. Dismissal now looms as the next step.
A pro se plaintiff admitted using AI to draft filings in an insurance dispute but repeatedly misrepresented the law, citing phantom cases and cases that stood for unrelated propositions. The court denied sanctions against defense counsel while warning that all litigants must verify AI-generated lega
A junior attorney at the New Orleans City Attorney’s office used ChatGPT to find supporting cases for a motion to dismiss and submitted nine non-existent citations without checking them. The supervising attorney, who reviewed the brief but failed to verify the unusual bullet-pointed citations, was s
An Alabama attorney filed opening and reply briefs in a Supreme Court appeal that contained an astounding number of invalid, inaccurate, and irrelevant citations — all apparent AI hallucinations. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal entirely, imposed sanctions, and issued a comprehensive ruling on
A pro se Cuban national fighting USCIS naturalization delays cited a fabricated Supreme Court quotation and misread a 1926 precedent. Judge Abelson warned of sanctions and remanded, confirming courts hold self-represented litigants to the same standard as attorneys on AI hallucinations.
Colorado attorney Zachariah C. Crabill received a 90-day suspension from the Colorado Presiding Disciplinary Judge for submitting ChatGPT-generated fictional case citations in a motion — then lying to the trial judge by blaming a non-existent intern. It is among the earliest and most comprehensive attorney discipline decisions in the AI hallucination era.