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 Seth Cameron Virgil 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.
The Appellate Court of Maryland flagged non-existent case citations in a divorce appeal brief — citations that did not exist and were likely AI-generated. The Westlaw editor’s note explicitly identifies the decision as containing ‘incorrect or non-existent’ references, a pattern courts are increasingly calling out.
A federal patent court in Kansas ordered all signing attorneys for patent plaintiff Lexos Media to show cause why they should not be sanctioned and referred to disciplinary administrators for submitting AI-generated defective legal citations in both a summary judgment response and an expert witness brief.
The UK’s Upper Tribunal held in Munir v. Secretary of State for the Home Department that an immigration lawyer who used an AI system to draft legal submissions — without disclosing this or verifying the output — had waived legal professional privilege over the AI-generated content. The ruling is England and Wales’ first direct holding on AI tool use and privilege waiver.
An Arizona federal court struck a pro se plaintiff’s amended complaint motion after discovering two AI-hallucinated citations and warned the plaintiff that future submissions containing hallucinated cases would result in Rule 11 sanctions. The court explicitly stated that AI hallucinations allow it
A Wisconsin federal court found AI-hallucinated citations in a pro se complaint — including citations that led to entirely unrelated cases — and warned plaintiffs that hallucinations are ‘fundamentally incompatible with our justice system’ while ordering compliance with Rule 11.
Endure Industries, a small business appealing a Defence Health Agency contract cancellation before the ASBCA, cited a nonexistent court decision in its brief. After a show cause order, the company admitted AI use — the first documented AI hallucination admission before the Armed Services Board of Co
A Florida pro se appellant challenging election procedures filed briefs citing numerous non-existent cases and quoting real cases for propositions they do not support. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal, issued a formal warning that future AI-hallucinated filings will face advers
A New York attorney was immediately suspended after her AI-generated brief filed in federal immigration court contained fabricated citations — then refused to cooperate with the state bar investigation, calling it a “racist attack.” The First Department’s order under 22 NYCRR 1240.9 shows how AI mis
