How courts and legislatures are treating Artificial Intelligence — case tracker, analysis, and India angle.
In a striking reversal of the typical AI hallucination pattern, Maryland’s Appellate Court published a custody/SIJS opinion that itself contains citation references that are incorrect or do not exist — preserved in the record because they appear in the official court opinion. This case represents th
A pro se plaintiff who used AI to draft a sanctions motion against a school district — without verifying the citations — was himself hit with $7,032 in sanctions when multiple fabricated citations were found in his filing, despite his completion of a Johns Hopkins AI ethics course.
The US Seventh Circuit admonished a petitioner’s attorney for including AI-generated non-existent citations and a false quotation in an immigration appeal brief — but imposed no financial penalty, signalling that a formal admonishment from a circuit court carries its own significant weight.
A Mississippi federal court ordered plaintiff’s attorney Aaron Randall Rice to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11 after his opposition brief cited a fictitious Fifth Circuit case and included fabricated quotes from real decisions.
In a follow-up sanctions order in an employment discrimination case, the court sanctioned the senior named partner of a law firm after the firm’s associate used AI to draft a brief containing a fabricated citation. The supervising attorney argued he did not draft the brief and was unaware — the cour
A Maryland federal court dismissed an employment discrimination claim and held a sanctions hearing after pro se plaintiff Devin Robinson’s response brief cited non-existent cases and fabricated quotations, which Robinson attributed to AI assistance. The court dismissed all claims with prejudice, fin
The BC Civil Resolution Tribunal found a self-represented strata owner’s submissions cited non-existent CRT cases, incorrect citations, and a Strata Property Act subsection that does not exist — identifying these as ‘likely hallucinations generated by artificial intelligence.’
An S.D.N.Y. Magistrate Judge used the explicit term ‘AI-generated hallucination’ after finding a quoted passage attributed to a real case was not in that case or anywhere on Westlaw. Admonishment issued with a clear verification duty order — and a rare note of judicial empathy for pro se AI use.
A Georgia federal court denied a pro se plaintiff’s motion to strike, noting that the brief cited non-existent cases and explicitly warning that while there is no prohibition on using AI in litigation, pro se litigants must not cite fake opinions — failure to comply with Rule 11 may result in moneta
Parents suing a school district over the sexual exploitation of their disabled child found their lawyers undermined by AI-hallucinated case citations. The court flagged multiple phantom authorities in the plaintiffs’ brief while largely allowing their substantive claims — Title IX, ADA, and First Am