How courts and legislatures are treating Artificial Intelligence — case tracker, analysis, and India angle.
An Assistant U.S. Attorney was ordered to appear before a federal court in North Carolina after fabricated quotations and misrepresented case holdings were found across five government filings — including fabricated regulatory text from the Code of Federal Regulations. Supervisors and the Civil Divi
In a child custody appeal, a pro se father cited four “findings” of the trial court that simply did not appear in the actual court order. The Arizona Court of Appeals called these “hallucinated findings” — the first time an appellate court applied the term “hallucinated” directly to a litigant’s mis
A US federal court struck Makel’s opposition brief after discovering it cited non-existent cases generated by AI, issuing an order to show cause on sanctions. The court held that Rule 11 certification applies with full force to AI-assisted filings, and ignorance of AI’s hallucination tendency is not
A C.D. California judge issued a show cause order threatening $2,500 in sanctions or dismissal after plaintiffs’ counsel misrepresented case holdings and included a non-existent quotation in a banking brief — and then failed to correct the errors even after defendants identified them in a reply.
A USA court addressed the use of AI tool in legal proceedings in Andre Legarza v. Northern, 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 ChatGPT in legal proceedings in Fletcher 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.
A USA court addressed the use of ChatGPT in legal proceedings in Lucas v. Wells, 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 Rako v. Wmware, 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 federal court in Michigan denied a motion for relief from judgment in a case where Westlaw editors flagged the filed submissions as containing non-existent citations generated by ChatGPT and OpenAI tools. The case is another data point in the escalating judicial reckoning with generative AI in legal practice.
An Australian federal court referred a legal practitioner to the South Australian Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner after discovering that case citations in court submissions were generated by AI hallucination — referring to cases that do not exist. The formal referral makes Pasuengos one of the most significant AI hallucination disciplinary cases in Australian legal history.