AI Hallucination Cases Database

AI Hallucination Cases Database – Damien Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases This database tracks legal decisions1 I.e., all documents where the use of AI, whether established or merely alleged, is addressed in more than a passing reference by the court or tribunal. Notably, this does not cover mere allegations of hallucinations, but only cases where the court or tribunal has explicitly found (or implied) that a party relied on hallucinated content or material. As an exception, the database also covers some judicial decisions where AI use was alleged but not confirmed. This is a judgment call on my part. in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content – typically fake citations, but also other types of AI-generated arguments. It does not track the (necessarily wider) universe of all fake citations or use of AI in court filings. While seeking to be exhaustive (1981 cases identified so far), it is a work in progress and will expand as new examples emerge. This database has been featured in news media, and indeed in several decisions dealing with hallucinated material.2 Examples of media coverage include: - M. Hiltzik, AI 'hallucinations' are a growing problem for the legal profession (LA Times, 22 May 2025) - E. Volokh, "AI Hallucination Cases," from Courts All Over the World (Volokh Conspiracy, 18 May 2025) - J-.M. Manach, "Il génère des plaidoiries par IA, et en recense 160 ayant « halluciné » depuis 2023" (Next, 1 July 2025) - J. Koebler & J. Roscoe, "18 Lawyers Caught Using AI Explain Why They Did It (404 Media, 30 September 2025) If you have any questions about the database, a FAQ is available here. And if you know of a case that should be included, feel free to contact me.3 (Readers may also be interested in this project regarding AI use in academic papers.) Based on this database, I have developed an automated reference checker that also detects hallucinations: PelAIkan. Check the Reports in the database for examples, and reach out to me for a demo. For weekly takes on cases like these, and what they mean for legal practice, subscribe to Artificial Authority. Click to Download CSV Last updated: 28 August 2026 Case Court / Jurisdiction Date ▼ Party Using AI AI Tool Note: The mention of a specific tool does not necessarily mean that tool was responsible for the hallucinations in question."> ⓘ Nature of Hallucination Outcome / Sanction Monetary Penalty Details Report(s) Thomas Raynard James v. Detective Kevin Conley, et al. S.D. Florida (USA) 27 August 2026 Lawyer Unidentified Fabricated Exhibits or Submissions (5) Bar Referral — — Plaintiff’s counsel included multiple purported IACP "Training Keys" in the Fifth Amended Complaint that later could not be verified and were conceded to be the product of unverified AI-augmented research (AI hallucinations). Defendant moved for Rule 11 sanctions; the Court denied the motion on procedural grounds because the safe-harbor service requirement was not satisfied. The Court found counsel’s reliance on unverified AI-generated material irresponsible, denied sanctions, and recommended referral of the signing attorneys to the Ad Hoc Committee for potential disciplinary review. Noella P. Turgeon v. FHLMC D. New Hampshire (USA) 26 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Implied Fabricated Case Law (1) False Quotes Case Law (1) Misrepresented Case Law (1) Brief Struck — — Tyler Shelbert v. Baxter International, Inc. N.D. Illinois (USA) 26 August 2026 Lawyer Implied Misrepresented Case Law (1) Admonishment — — Darrin L. Johnson, Jr. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al. D. Maryland (USA) 26 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Implied Fabricated Case Law (2) Warning — — Krystal Faye Potterf, et al. v. Drew F. Wessels, et al. E.D. Michigan (USA) 26 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Unidentified Fabricated Case Law (2) False Quotes Case Law (1) Misrepresented Case Law (2) Warning — — Benjamin v. State CA Maryland (USA) 25 August 2026 Lawyer Implied Fabricated Case Law (1) Admonishment — — The court found appellant's brief contained multiple inaccurate case citations and observed that, although counsel did not admit using AI, the errors appeared likely AI-related. Citing Mezu v. Mezu (an earlier AI-related decision), the court reviewed the errors, concluded they were not excessive and did not include wholly fabricated cases, accepted counsel's corrective attempts, and opted not to refer counsel for disciplinary action while warning counsel to verify citations generated with AI. Kurelko v. Ballard D. New Jersey (USA) 25 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Implied Fabricated Case Law (1) False Quotes Case Law (1) Admonishment & Warning — — AndDone, LLC v. Shante Gaines; Reset Financial Group, LLC W.D. Missouri (USA) 25 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Implied Fabricated Case Law (1) False Quotes Case Law (1) Misrepresented Case Law (1) Order to Show Cause — — Michael L. Ruiz v. Magellan Financial & Insurance Services (2) D. Arizona (USA) 24 August 2026 Lawyer ChatGPT False Quotes Case Law (3) Misrepresented Case Law (1) Formal public reprimand — — Jack Ferm v. Agritech Properties, et al. D. Utah (USA) 24 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Implied False Quotes Case Law (1) Warning — Plaintiff's Objection (Existence of hallucinations in drafting verified by myself thanks to PelAIkan.) Adibi v. AIG Israel Insurance Co. Tel Aviv-Jaffa DC (Israel) 23 August 2026 Lawyer Implied Fabricated Case Law (1) Monetary Sanction 20000 ILS — Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association CA Florida (2d) (USA) 21 August 2026 Lawyer Unidentified Fabricated Case Law (1) False Quotes Case Law (1) Misrepresented Case Law (3) Monetary Sanction; Adverse Costs Order; Bar Referral; Briefs struck 1500 USD — Source: Christian Silva Unspecified murder appeal (Las Cruces area) New Mexico SC (USA) 21 August 2026 Lawyer ChatGPT Fabricated Exhibits or Submissions (1) False Quotes Exhibits or Submissions (1) Found in contempt; removed from the case; Monetary Sanction; Briefs stricken and appeal to start anew; Bar Referral. 5000 USD — Joseph M. Speranza v. Golden Technologies, Inc. D. Nevada (USA) 21 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Implied Fabricated Case Law (1) — — ⚠ Alleged AI Use Cecile Kasengela v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, et al. C.D. California (USA) 20 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Implied Fabricated Case Law (1) Admonishment & Warning — Plaintiff's Motion Source: Jesse Schaefer Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Products Inc. et al. D. Delaware (USA) 20 August 2026 Lawyer Strongsuit Misrepresented Exhibits or Submissions (2) Warning — — Faiz Enterprise v. State Tax Officer, Unit-67, Surat & Anr. Gujarat High Court (India) 20 August 2026 Judge Unidentified Fabricated Case Law (1) Misrepresented Case Law (2) — — Stephen Lohbeck v. Amazon.com Services, LLC E.D. California (USA) 20 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Implied False Quotes Case Law (1) Warning — — Michael Dotson v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC C.D. California (USA) 20 August 2026 Lawyer Implied False Quotes Case Law (1) Order to Show Cause — — Full Standard Properties, LLC v. SJ 6070, LLC N.D. California (USA) 20 August 2026 Lawyer Implied Fabricated Case Law (1) Adverse Costs (Voluntarily repaid) 14500 USD — Snisko v. Cascade Funding Mortgage Trust HB4 N.D. Illinois (USA) 19 August 2026 Lawyer Implied False Quotes Case Law (2) Misrepresented Case Law (1) Order to Show Cause — — Source: Jesse Schaefer Mitchell v. HIG Realty Credit Fund, L.P. CA Georgia (USA) 19 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Unidentified Fabricated Case Law (2) Misrepresented Case Law (2) Warning — — Source: Jesse Schaefer Zoryana Kaspryak v. Mykhaylo Stadarskyy SC Pennsylvania (USA) 19 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Implied Fabricated Case Law (1) Misrepresented Case Law (1) Warning — — Wilkinson v. Schmelzer CA Iowa (USA) 19 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Implied Fabricated Legal Norm (1) No sanctions — — Source: Jesse Schaefer ⚠ Alleged AI Use In re the Marriage of Kira Lindsay and Jamie Alexander Dillon CA California (USA) 19 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Unidentified False Quotes Case Law (3) Costs Denied — — Kelly v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority D. Nevada (USA) 19 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Implied Fabricated Case Law (1) False Quotes Case Law (2) Warning — — Source: Jesse Schaefer In re Marriage of Rebekah Muriel and Johnathan David Farris CA Washington (USA) 18 August 2026 Lawyer Implied Fabricated Case Law (1) Adverse Costs Order 1 USD — Joann LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. (2) W.D. Washington (USA) 18 August 2026 Expert Claude and ChatGPT Fabricated Exhibits or Submissions (1), other (2) Expert Brief excluded/struck — — Kourradi v. Christopher CA Texas (USA) 18 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Implied Fabricated Case Law (4) Brief Struck; Appeal Dismissed — — Source: Jesse Schaefer Gilberto Garcia Perez v. Todd Blanche, et al. W.D. Texas (USA) 18 August 2026 Lawyer Implied Fabricated Case Law (6) Admonishment; Warning — — Sani v. Institute for Human Reproduction CA Illinois (USA) 18 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Implied Fabricated Case Law (1) Admonishment — — Source: Jesse Schaefer Davos Francois GAO (Comptroller General of the United States) (USA) 17 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Implied Misrepresented Case Law (1) — — Source: David Timm ⚠ Alleged AI Use סע"ש 7669-06-24 Haifa Regional Labor Court (Israel) 17 August 2026 Lawyer Unidentified Fabricated Case Law (4) Monetary Sanction 6000 ILS — Boettcher v. Boettcher CA Arizona (USA) 14 August 2026 Lawyer Implied False Quotes Case Law (1) False quote struck from record — — Guerra-Quezada v. United States; Guerra-Vasquez v. United States (consolidated) 5th Cir. CA (USA) 14 August 2026 Lawyer Implied False Quotes Case Law (3) Misrepresented Case Law (1) Warning — — Daryl Harris v. Christopher A. Wray S.D. Indiana (USA) 14 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Unidentified Misrepresented Case Law (1), other (1) Warning — — Brankle v. Schmell CA Indiana (USA) 14 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant ChatGPT Fabricated Case Law (1), Legal Norm (1) Monetary Sanction (upheld) 1546 USD — The trial court found that Brankle's filings contained repeated citations to rules that do not exist and fictitious cases, stating he appeared to be using ChatGPT to prepare filings. The trial court denied his motion to compel and ordered him to pay Schmell's expenses; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the motion was not substantially justified because it was riddled with hallucinated authorities and that as a pro se litigant he is held to the same standards as trained attorneys. Source: Jesse Schaefer Rivard v. Vermont Dept. of Corrections SC Vermont (USA) 14 August 2026 Pro Se Litigant Implied Fabricated Case Law (2) False Quotes Exhibits or Submissions (1) Misrepresented Case Law (1) Admonishment — — Apelação Cível nº 1032884-04.2025.8.26.0224 TJ San Paulo (Brazil) 13 August 2026 Lawyer Unidentified Fabricated Case Law (1) Monetary Fine; Bar Referral 1 BRL — The court determined that the author's attorney used an AI tool without critical review to generate and cite non-existent jurisprudential precedents in the initial petition. The conduct was held to constitute litigância de má-fé; the court imposed a procedural fine (2% of the updated value of the cause) and ordered that the decision be forwarded to the OAB for possible professional measures, reasoning that using AI to fabricate authorities undermines the integrity of the judicial debate and violates duties of probity and good [truncated for AI cost control]