How courts and legislatures are treating Artificial Intelligence — case tracker, analysis, and India angle.
A Florida federal court held a sanctions hearing over AI-generated fake citations submitted in two consolidated employment cases, warning that ‘the use of AI as a legal research tool does not alter’ lawyers’ basic ethical obligation to provide true and accurate citations to the court.
A federal court in Oklahoma warned an attorney that future AI-generated fake citations could lead to sanctions or the striking of filings. Though no sanctions were imposed this time, the court’s rebuke signals escalating judicial intolerance for unverified AI-generated legal research.
A Michigan federal court remanded a Social Security disability case while warning plaintiff’s counsel that a cited case — Fleck v. Commissioner of Social Security — appeared to be a ‘phantom’ case likely generated by AI. The court warned that future AI-generated unconfirmed citations could result in sanctions.
A federal court in Jones v. Delta prohibited counsel from using AI tools to prepare deposition questions or analyse deposition transcripts in real time, finding that AI-assisted deposition preparation created unfair informational asymmetry. The ruling is one of the first to restrict AI use specifically during the deposition phase of litigation, rather than in written pleadings or research.
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.
