How courts and legislatures are treating Artificial Intelligence — case tracker, analysis, and India angle.
A Chicago pro se plaintiff brought Fair Housing Act claims against his landlords, but his filings contained references to cases that do not exist. The N.D. Illinois court granted dismissal of some claims while flagging the hallucinated citations in its published opinion.
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 Bombay High Court quashed a ₹2.84 crore income tax reassessment order after discovering the Revenue’s legal brief cited judgments that did not exist — fabricated by an AI tool. The court held that proceedings built on non-existent precedent were fundamentally flawed and could not stand, marking one of India’s first formal judicial rejections of AI-hallucinated legal authority.
A Colorado federal court sanctioned attorneys for MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell $6,000 for submitting AI-generated fictitious citations in election-related litigation — demonstrating that no area of law is exempt from AI verification duties.
The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld an arbitration award against a former Dell employee and formally warned the pro se appellant about apparent AI misuse in his reply brief — adding to a growing body of circuit-level AI accountability rulings.
Judge Otis Wright of the Central District of California sanctioned plaintiff’s counsel $2,500 for using AI-generated fictitious citations three times — including attempting to conceal the misconduct — and ordered the attorney to file a disclosure declaration in every case he actively handles.
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.