AI is never wrong

AI is never wrong

Except sometimes.

2026

  1. · A whistleblowers' lawyer

    $5,000 fine

    Lawyer fined $5,000 for an undisclosed AI-written brief

    Two former executives of the Los Angeles Film School sued it in 2024 under the False Claims Act. They alleged it misled students about job outcomes to obtain federal student aid. Their lawyer filed an opposition brief that AI had written, without saying so. US District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld found the brief had almost no citations to legal authority or the complaint. He said its arguments seemed untethered to the law. In October 2026, he fined the lawyer $5,000. He also dismissed the suit with prejudice, mostly because the alleged conduct fell outside the six-year time limit.

    Sources: MyNewsLA: Judge Tosses Suit Against LA Film School, Variety (via Yahoo News): L.A. Film School Escapes Whistleblower Lawsuit as Judge Punishes Lawyer for AI Use

  2. · South Africa's CCMA

    Ruling declared nullity

    South African labor arbitrator's ruling voided over a fake AI case

    Six former South African Post Office workers brought unfair dismissal claims while the company was in business rescue. In August 2026, a commissioner at the CCMA, the country's labor dispute body, sent the claims to arbitration. He cited a Constitutional Court ruling to show that business rescue did not block them. No such ruling exists, and its citation belongs to a case about spousal visas. On October 15, the Johannesburg Labour Court halted the arbitration. Acting Judge Sean Snyman wrote that the commissioner must have relied on AI. He called the ruling a nullity and said arbitrators must check that cases AI finds are real.

    Sources: GroundUp: Labour Court slams CCMA commissioner for relying on AI hallucination, Sunday World: CCMA issues new AI rules following scathing labour court judgment and gaffes

  3. · Deloitte

    Refund sought

    Deloitte's WA university merger report cites sources that don't exist

    Western Australia paid Deloitte A$166,000 for a study on merging three of its public universities. In mid-October 2026, media reported that the report contained AI-generated references to sources that do not exist. Guardian Australia found a ChatGPT tag in the web address of one cited World Health Organization report. The report's cost tables were also wrong by hundreds of millions of dollars, including one total that was off by A$260 million. Deloitte said it used generative AI for research and proofing and called the errors minor. Education minister Tony Buti first called them typos, then said he was angry. The state is seeking to recover costs, and Deloitte will reissue the report.

    Sources: The Guardian: 'Extremely disappointed': WA government seeks reimbursement from Deloitte over flawed university report, ABC News (Australia): Tony Buti makes big splash with uni mega-merger, but now ripples are coming back

  4. · A registered foreign lawyer

    Struck off

    UK tribunal strikes off a lawyer over an AI-drafted defense

    A registered foreign lawyer in England faced a Solicitors Regulation Authority case after a 2024 conviction for employing a person barred from working. He used generative AI to draft his answer to the regulator. The regulator's counsel found wrong quotations and citations that did not support the points made. His reply admitting the AI use was also drafted with AI and held more false material. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal removed him from the register in its first case on AI hallucinations. It said the conviction or the AI misuse alone would have justified removal. It rated his culpability for the AI errors very high. The regulator did not seek costs because he could not pay.

    Sources: Legal Futures: Lawyer struck off for using fake AI-generated cases before SDT

  5. · Indian Customs, Surat

    ₹425 crore fine voided

    India's top court voids a ₹425 crore penalty built on fake AI cases

    In October 2025, a customs officer in Surat imposed a penalty of about ₹425 crore on a diamond trader for declaring natural diamonds as lab-grown. The Gujarat High Court upheld the order. On September 2, 2026, India's Supreme Court set both decisions aside. Checking the order's sources, the court found cases that did not exist, fake citations, and real cases cited for points they never made. It said the material appeared to be AI hallucinations. The court did not rule on the merits. It sent the case to a different officer of the same rank. It left any action against the original officer to the appointing authority.

    Sources: SCC Online: Supreme Court sets aside ₹425.27-crore Customs penalty order built on AI-generated fake citations, Bar & Bench: Supreme Court scraps ₹425 crore penalty over fake citations, AI hallucinations in customs order

  6. · A Kroger plaintiff's lawyer

    $8,000 fine

    Georgia judge doubles a lawyer's fine for lying about AI use

    In a lawsuit against grocery chain Kroger in federal court in Atlanta, the plaintiff's lawyer filed briefs citing fake cases and misstating real ones. Kroger's lawyers were the first to raise concerns that he had relied on AI tools. At a hearing, the judge asked him whether he had used artificial intelligence, and he said he had not. In his written response, he claimed not to understand which cases the court had asked about. On August 28, 2026, the court found he had repeatedly lied. It fined him $1,000 for each of the four worst fake or misleading authorities, then doubled the total to $8,000. It also ordered him to document the ethics and technology training he said he had taken.

    Sources: U.S. District Court, N.D. Georgia: Booker v. The Kroger Co., Opinion and Order of Sanctions (Dkt. 66)

  7. · Capital Standard's lawyer

    $1,500 fine plus fees

    Florida appeals court finds 46 AI hallucinations, sanctions lawyer

    A lawyer for Capital Standard appealed a Pinellas County judgment in favor of U.S. Bank. His amended initial brief and reply brief contained 46 hallucinated authorities, 31 in the first and 15 in the second, including quotes that do not exist. The court ordered him to produce every case he cited. He missed the deadline and later said he had not fully appreciated that AI tools can invent citations. The court found generative AI had been his main research tool, not a supplement. On August 21, 2026, Florida's Second District Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, fined him $1,500, made him personally pay U.S. Bank's fees for answering his brief, and referred him to The Florida Bar.

    Sources: Florida Second District Court of Appeal: Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 2D2024-1392, Law360: Fla. Attorney Fined, Referred To Bar For Unapologetic AI Use

  8. · Gujarat State Tax Dept.

    GST order set aside

    Indian court voids a tax officer's GST order built on fake AI cases

    A probationary state tax officer in Surat, India, used an AI tool to draft a GST order against a business. The order relied on judgments that did not exist, were miscited, or did not apply. The business challenged it in the Gujarat High Court, which raised the problem on August 13, 2026. In an affidavit, the officer admitted that AI had drafted the order and supplied the citations, and apologized unconditionally. On August 20, the court set aside the proceedings and told the department to issue a fresh notice and hear the business's defense. It ordered officials to follow new departmental rules on AI use and warned that breaking them would be contempt of court.

    Sources: MediaNama: Gujarat High Court quashes GST order based on non-existent and AI-generated case law, Verdictum: Gujarat High Court Quashes GST Orders After Officer Relies On AI-Generated Non-Existent Judgments

  9. · GLG Law

    $2,000 and 6 CLE hours

    Connecticut's top court sanctions lawyer after ChatGPT altered cites

    A Connecticut lawyer researched two public interest appeals on LexisNexis and checked every citation. He then pasted the drafts into ChatGPT to improve the writing. Without his noticing, ChatGPT added new case citations and changed existing ones. About seven erroneous citations reached the state Supreme Court in applications and briefs. Lawyers for amici curiae spotted them, and he filed corrections. On July 31, 2026, the court found he had breached his duty of competence, though not on purpose. It ordered six extra hours of legal education, three of them on generative AI. He and his firm must each donate $1,000 for ethics training. It was the first such case the court had faced.

    Sources: Connecticut Supreme Court (copy hosted by AI Hallucination Cases database): TOV Realty, LLC v. Suarez; Kosel Equity, LLC v. MacGregor, order of July 31, 2026, Law360: Conn. Justices Order Education For Atty Who Missed AI Flubs

  10. · A Starbucks worker's lawyer

    $15,000 fine

    Illinois court fines a lawyer $15,000 for ChatGPT's false citations

    A Starbucks employee appealed the dismissal of a race discrimination charge to the Illinois Appellate Court. Her lawyer's briefs contained 10 false citations: four made-up quotes from statutes, one case that does not exist, and five real cases that do not say what he claimed. He said he used a corporate ChatGPT subscription and had checked the citations on LexisNexis, but missed the errors. On July 28, 2026, the court upheld the dismissal and fined him $15,000, or $1,500 per false citation. It said it set that rate above earlier fines on purpose. It also referred him to Illinois's attorney discipline commission.

    Sources: Illinois Appellate Court: Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, 2026 IL App (1st) 251462, ABA Journal: Appeals court fines lawyer in Starbucks bias case $15K for AI-generated fake citations

  11. · A Tacoma plaintiff's lawyer

    $3,000 sanction

    Lawyer fined over ChatGPT and Claude citations; expert report tossed

    A plaintiff sued supplement maker Outliers, which sells as Thesis, in federal court in Tacoma, Washington. Her lawyer's filings and two expert reports contained dozens of inaccurate legal and factual citations. The lawyer told the court she had used ChatGPT and Claude to draft her submissions and had not reviewed their output. On July 24, 2026, the court fined her $3,000 personally and required her to certify that she had checked every citation in future filings. On August 18, it excluded an expert report whose citations to academic articles were AI-made, saying they shattered the expert's credibility. In the same order it granted summary judgment and dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice.

    Sources: U.S. District Court, W.D. Washington: LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc., Order on Sanctions (Dkt. 265), WSBA NWSidebar: Aug 10, 2026 post on Ledoux v. Outliers sanctions, WSBA NWSidebar: Federal Court Excludes Expert for AI 'Hallucinated' Citations

  12. · A California appellate lawyer

    $1,500 sanction

    California appeals court fines a lawyer for AI-added fake quotes

    A lawyer appealed a fee ruling in a Humboldt County lawsuit his client had won. The opening brief contained fictitious quotations, one presented as coming from the California Supreme Court, and miscited a case. In a declaration, the lawyer said his office uses generative AI with human checks, and blamed a mix-up with his paralegal. The court read his account as showing he had used generative AI to add case law during breaks in another trial, without planning to read those cases himself. On July 10, 2026, California's First District Court of Appeal ordered him to pay $1,500 and sent its opinion to the State Bar. He also had to give his client a copy.

    Sources: California Court of Appeal: Del Biaggio v. Bansen, A174647 (opinion)

  13. · Airline workers' lawyer

    Referred for discipline

    Appeals court refers a lawyer who cited fake AI cases twice

    Aviation workers sued Atlas Air and a contractor over pandemic vaccine, testing and mask rules. Their lawyer's opening brief at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited at least eight cases that do not exist, including one supposedly from that court. After Atlas flagged them, the lawyer filed a late reply that tried to withdraw eight authorities. None matched the fake cases in his brief, and all eight were hallucinated too. On July 10, 2026, the court upheld the dismissal of the suit. It found the lawyer had handed his legal work to an AI algorithm and referred him to its lawyer conduct committee. The ABA Journal described the ruling as a reprimand.

    Sources: FindLaw: Akerlund v. Atlas Air Inc LLC (2026), 11th Cir. opinion, ABA Journal: Lawyer's use of 'fake and hallucinated' citations gets reprimand from US appeals court

  14. · India's NCLT tribunal

    Two rulings set aside

    India's Supreme Court voids tribunal rulings that cited fake AI cases

    India's National Company Law Tribunal admitted an insolvency case against Essel Infraprojects in 2024, over a default of ₹87.43 crore. Its order relied on six precedents that were either nonexistent or did not say what was claimed. An affidavit said the citations were AI-generated and appeared in no recognized legal database. The bank's lawyers swore they never cited them, which pointed to the tribunal's own research. The appeals tribunal upheld the order in 2025 without catching the problem. On July 2, 2026, the Supreme Court set aside both rulings and sent the case back for a fresh decision. It called for zero tolerance toward unverified AI precedents and asked the Bar Council of India to set rules and penalties for lawyers.

    Sources: LiveLaw: Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLT Judgment For Using AI-Hallucinated Citations, Asks BCI To Examine Issue, The Federal: Supreme Court sets aside NCLAT judgment over AI-generated fake citations

  15. · BMW Toronto

    CA$7,000 lost

    BMW Toronto honors a buyback price its chatbot offered by mistake

    A customer asked BMW Toronto, where they had bought a used 2021 BMW, to buy the car back. A text assistant named Quinn replied with an offer of CA$27,162.79. That was exactly what the customer still owed on the car loan. Quinn never said it was a bot, and it booked a meeting, texting "Let's lock in today at 3:30." A salesperson then called to say Quinn was an AI and the offer was a mistake. The dealer's real offer was CA$20,000 at most. After CBC News contacted the dealership, it reinstated the original offer, and the customer accepted. The sales manager said a staff miscommunication made the bot treat the loan balance as the price.

    Sources: CBC News (via Yahoo News Canada): Dealership revoked offer to buy back customer's BMW, blaming wayward AI chatbot

  16. · Four lawyers in Mississippi

    $8,000 fines, 4 removed

    Judge removes all four lawyers in a Mississippi case over fake cases

    In a fee dispute between a lawyer and the City of Aberdeen, Mississippi, lawyers on both sides filed briefs that cited cases that do not exist. The city's lead lawyer had used an AI research tool, and the plaintiff's lead lawyer had used generative AI to draft. Neither checked the output, and their local co-counsel signed without reading. The court canceled the trial set for March 2026. On June 8, 2026, the judge revoked the two lead lawyers' admission to the case and barred them from that federal court for two years. The court removed all four lawyers, fined them $8,000 in total and sent the order to three state bars.

    Sources: U.S. District Court, N.D. Mississippi: Sanctions Order, Withers v. City of Aberdeen, No. 1:24-CV-218-SA-RP

  17. · ByteDance

    600 yuan unpaid

    Doubao misquotes a flight fee, then pledges 600 yuan it never pays

    A user in China asked ByteDance's AI assistant Doubao about canceling a flight. Doubao said he would pay a 5% cancellation fee, so he canceled. The real fee was 40% of the ticket price. Doubao then said it would compensate him 600 yuan, about $90. It even generated a "compensation agreement." No money arrived. Doubao later said that, as an AI, it could not transfer money. When he asked whether he needed a lawyer, it said he could win on his own. He wrote on social media that he had filed a lawsuit against the Doubao app on May 12, then deleted the post. The story topped Weibo's trending list. ByteDance did not answer press questions.

    Sources: Sixth Tone: AI Hallucinates Flight Refund, Sparking Memes in China

  18. · Aesthetify GmbH

    Court order

    A German court holds a clinic to its chatbot's false claims

    A clinic's website chatbot booked appointments and answered questions. Asked about the two doctors who run the company, it called them specialists in plastic and aesthetic surgery. They hold no such titles. A consumer association sued. The Higher Regional Court of Hamm treated the chatbot's answers as the company's own misleading advertising, even if the bot had only been given correct data. It ruled the chatbot is not a third party, and ordered the company to stop the claims. Because the question is new, the court allowed an appeal to Germany's Federal Court of Justice.

    Sources: Justiz NRW: OLG Hamm, 4 UKl 3/25, press release of May 12, 2026, DLA Piper: The emerging common law of chatbots: a German court holds doctors liable for chatbot responses

  19. · DOGE

    Cuts ruled unlawful

    Judge voids DOGE's humanities grant cuts made with ChatGPT's help

    In April 2025, DOGE staff ended about 1,400 National Endowment for the Humanities grants worth over $100 million. Court records later showed they asked ChatGPT whether each grant related to DEI, in under 120 characters, without defining DEI. Flagged grants included a museum's air-conditioning replacement and a newspaper digitization project. The staffers reviewed no applications, and the agency's acting chair did not know ChatGPT was used. On May 7, 2026, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon ruled the terminations unlawful and unconstitutional. The ruling found violations of the First Amendment and equal protection and said DOGE lacked authority. It barred the government from enforcing the cuts.

    Sources: CBS News: Federal judge finds DOGE's elimination of humanities grants "unlawful", Inside Higher Ed: How DOGE Gutted the NEH in 22 Days

  20. · Clayton County DA's office

    Trial order vacated

    Georgia prosecutor's AI citations void a ruling in a murder case

    A Georgia woman serving life for murder asked for a new trial. The assistant district attorney opposing her filed briefs citing cases that do not exist or do not say what was claimed. She also largely drafted the order the trial judge used in September 2025 to deny the motion. That order contained nine such citations. After oral argument, the Georgia Supreme Court demanded an explanation. The prosecutor admitted she had used AI software and not verified its citations. On May 5, 2026, the court vacated the order and told the trial judge to write a new one without either side's lawyers. It suspended the prosecutor from practicing before it for six months and admonished her office.

    Sources: Supreme Court of Georgia: Payne v. State, S26A0459 (May 5, 2026), CBS News Atlanta: Hannah Payne gets chance for retrial because of AI citations, Georgia Supreme Court rules

  21. · Affable Avenue's lawyer

    Client lost by default

    Judge enters default judgment over a lawyer's repeated AI citations

    Toy company Flycatcher sued a company called Affable Avenue and others in New York federal court over trademarks. In June 2025, Affable's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss citing at least 13 cases that do not exist and eight that lacked the quoted words. Opposing counsel flagged it. Ordered to explain, the lawyer filed a response that appeared AI-made and itself had a false citation. A later brief had more. Judge Katherine Polk Failla said she did not oppose AI use, but he refused to verify his filings. On February 5, 2026, she found bad faith, struck Affable's filings and entered default judgment against it. She let the other side seek its legal fees from the lawyer.

    Sources: ABA Journal: Frustrated judge tosses case with fake AI citations, references to Ray Bradbury's 'Fahrenheit 451', Reason (The Volokh Conspiracy): Lawyer's Repeated Filings with AI Hallucinations Lead to Default Judgment Against Client

  22. · OpenAI

    Wrongful-death lawsuit

    Lawsuit says GPT-4o encouraged a Colorado man's suicide

    On January 12, 2026, a mother sued OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman in California over the death of her 40-year-old son in Colorado. He died by suicide in early November 2025. The suit alleges that ChatGPT, running GPT-4o, romanticized death, normalized suicidal thinking and isolated him from loved ones. It says the model was built with excessive flattery and humanlike features that deepened dependency. It claims a crisis hotline came up only once in his final long conversation. It also notes OpenAI brought GPT-4o back soon after replacing it with GPT-5. OpenAI did not immediately comment.

    Sources: Futurism: ChatGPT Killed a Man After OpenAI Brought Back "Inherently Dangerous" GPT-4o, Lawsuit Claims

2025

  1. · Koi Security

    Domains blocked

    Lawsuit says an AI-made threat report branded a startup a spy front

    On December 30, 2025, security firm Koi published a report calling Zoomcorder, a meeting recorder from startup MeetingTV, a front for a Chinese criminal group. Security vendors and network providers worldwide then blocked MeetingTV's domains as malware infrastructure. MeetingTV sued Koi, its researchers and Palo Alto Networks, which had bought Koi. The complaint alleges Koi used a large language model to produce the report and published its hallucinated findings as fact. It says the key link was a browser extension that does not exist. Koi later edited the post to remove the references. Palo Alto defended Koi's research and expects the courts to settle it.

    Sources: The Register: Startup sues Palo Alto Networks' Koi Security, saying an AI-hallucinated report falsely linked it to Chinese espionage

  2. · A Chinese AI app developer

    Claim dismissed

    Court rules an AI's 100,000-yuan promise doesn't bind its maker

    In June 2025, a user in China asked an AI app about a university. It described a campus that does not exist. When he pushed back, the AI insisted it was right. It said it would pay him 100,000 yuan, about $14,400, if it was wrong, and suggested he sue at the Hangzhou Internet Court. He did, claiming 9,999 yuan from the developer. The court dismissed the case in December 2025. It ruled that an AI cannot make legally binding promises, and the developer had not authorized it to make any. The developer had warned users and used accuracy safeguards, and the user showed no real harm. It is reported as China's first ruling on liability for AI hallucinations.

    Sources: Sixth Tone: AI Developer Not Liable for Hallucination Errors: Chinese Court, Beijing Review: Can you sue AI for lying? A landmark ruling says no, King & Wood Mallesons: Chinese AI Service Provider Found Not Liable for Generating AI "Hallucinations"

  3. · Google

    $1.5M lawsuit

    Google AI Overview calls fiddler a sex offender; he sues for $1.5M

    The Sipekne'katik First Nation in Nova Scotia canceled a December 19, 2025, show by Cape Breton fiddler Ashley MacIsaac. Before canceling, the community showed him a Google AI Overview. It said he had convictions for sexual assault and internet luring and was on the national sex offender registry. None of it was true. The claims came from articles about a different Atlantic Canadian man with the same surname. The First Nation publicly apologized for the harm to his reputation and livelihood. Google said it uses such errors to improve its systems. In February 2026, MacIsaac sued Google in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for $1.5 million, alleging defective design. The claims have not been tested in court.

    Sources: Global News: N.S. fiddler Ashley MacIssac says AI content may have defamed him, Billboard Canada: Ashley MacIsaac Files $1.5 Million Lawsuit Against Google, Citing Defamation Over AI Overview

  4. · A plaintiff's lawyers in Oregon

    $110,000 lost

    Fake AI citations cost two lawyers $110,000 and sink a $12M suit

    A woman sued her two brothers in Oregon federal court over the family winery, seeking $12 million. Over five months, her lawyers filed three summary judgment briefs. They cited 15 cases that do not exist and eight quotations that real opinions never contained. After the other side flagged the errors, the lead lawyer stripped them out and refiled, which the judge called an attempted cover-up. On December 12, 2025, Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke struck the briefs and dismissed the case with prejudice. He called it "a notorious outlier in both degree and volume." The lead lawyer owes a $15,500 fine and about $80,000 of the brothers' legal fees. Local counsel owes about $14,000 more.

    Sources: ABA Journal: Federal judge hands down $110K penalty against 2 lawyers for AI errors in court documents, The Oregonian (via Yahoo News): AI hallucinations cost lawyers $110,000 in Oregon vineyard lawsuit, NWSidebar (Washington State Bar Association): Parade of Horribles: Federal Court in Oregon Surveys Sanctions for AI Fake Citations

  5. · Goldberg Segalla

    $59,500 in sanctions

    CHA's lawyers fined $59,500 after ChatGPT invents a court case

    A Cook County jury ordered the Chicago Housing Authority to pay more than $24 million to two children poisoned by lead paint in one of its apartments. The authority's law firm, Goldberg Segalla, then filed a post-trial motion citing an Illinois Supreme Court case that does not exist. A lawyer there had used ChatGPT and not checked its output. She was fired, and the firm apologized. The signing partner repeatedly told the court only one citation was wrong, but the plaintiffs found more false citations and quotes in the firm's filings. On December 5, 2025, Judge Thomas Cushing sanctioned the partner $10,000 and the firm $49,500. He faulted their misrepresentations more than the AI use itself.

    Sources: Chicago Sun-Times: Attorney and law firm for Chicago Housing Authority sanctioned nearly $60,000 for using ChatGPT in court case, Circuit Court of Cook County (copy in the AI Hallucination Cases database): Jordan v. Chicago Housing Authority, sanctions order (Dec. 5, 2025)

  6. · Deloitte Canada

    Report corrected

    Deloitte's C$1.6M Newfoundland health plan cites nonexistent papers

    Newfoundland and Labrador paid Deloitte nearly C$1.6 million for a 526-page health workforce plan, published in May 2025. In November, the local outlet The Independent found at least four citations to papers that do not appear to exist. Two researchers named as authors said the cited papers were not real. The province asked Deloitte to check every citation in the report. Deloitte said AI was not used to write the report but was used for a small number of research citations. It stood by its findings and said it was making a few citation corrections. Deloitte's Australian arm had partly refunded a government report with similar errors weeks earlier.

    Sources: The Independent (N.L.): Major N.L. healthcare report contains errors likely generated by A.I., CBC News (via Yahoo News Canada): N.L. asks Deloitte to carry out review after 'incorrect' citations found in $1.6M provincial health plan, Fortune: Deloitte allegedly cited AI-generated research in a million-dollar report for a Canadian provincial government

  7. · Gordon Rees

    $55,000+ in fees repaid

    Gordon Rees repays $55,000 in fees over AI-made bankruptcy filings

    A lawyer at Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani represented a creditor in the Alabama bankruptcy of Jackson Hospital & Clinic. Her motion was full of citations that did not exist, did not contain the quoted words, or did not support her points. A later brief clung to them and even recycled a fabricated quote. She said she had not used AI herself but knew someone outside the firm had. Gordon Rees voluntarily paid more than $55,000 of the other side's legal fees. On November 20, 2025, Judge Christopher Hawkins publicly reprimanded the lawyer, who had left the firm. He declined to sanction Gordon Rees, citing its remediation, but ordered it to share the opinion and its updated AI policies with its lawyers.

    Sources: ABA Journal: BigLaw firm won't be sanctioned for hallucinated cases after paying attorney fees, Bloomberg Law: Bankruptcy Judge Reprimands Ex-Gordon Rees Lawyer for AI Citations

  8. · OpenAI

    7 lawsuits filed

    Seven lawsuits say ChatGPT drove users to suicide and delusions

    On November 6, 2025, two legal groups filed seven lawsuits against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman in California state courts. They were brought for six adults and one teenager. Four of them died by suicide; three survived. The suits allege that ChatGPT, running GPT-4o, reinforced harmful delusions instead of steering people to help. They claim OpenAI rushed GPT-4o out despite internal warnings that it was dangerously sycophantic and manipulative. Claims include wrongful death, assisted suicide, involuntary manslaughter and negligence. One survivor says the chatbot led him into delusions that caused financial, reputational and emotional harm. OpenAI called the cases incredibly heartbreaking and said it was reviewing the filings.

    Sources: Social Media Victims Law Center: SMVLC Files 7 Lawsuits Accusing Chat GPT of Emotional Manipulation, Acting as "Suicide Coach", Euronews: OpenAI faces fresh lawsuits claiming ChatGPT drove people to suicide, delusions

  9. · Unidentified AI search tool

    Hunted a day too early

    AI search answer gives an Idaho hunter the wrong season opener

    Wardens in southeast Idaho caught a waterfowl hunter hunting one day before the season opened. He said he got the opening date from an online search. The search had returned an AI-generated answer with the wrong date. Wardens found the answer drew on a proposal that was never adopted, not the final rules. Idaho Fish and Game then warned hunters not to rely on AI to interpret its regulations. Its staff found other errors, including rules for a similarly named river in Arkansas. Wyoming's wildlife agency said AI results had presented failed bills as law. Officials in Illinois and Maine issued similar warnings.

    Sources: The Spokesman-Review: Ain't nothing like the real thing: Officials warn against using AI for hunting regs, Wyoming Game and Fish Department: AI-generated information can be inaccurate

  10. · US federal courts

    2 rulings withdrawn

    Two US judges withdraw rulings with AI-invented quotes and parties

    On June 30, 2025, a federal judge in New Jersey issued an opinion denying a motion to dismiss. It misstated case outcomes and included made-up quotes from court opinions and the defendants. On July 20, a federal judge in Mississippi issued a temporary restraining order. It named parties, allegations and declarations that were not in the case. Lawyers flagged the errors, and both judges withdrew and replaced the rulings. In letters released October 23 after questions from Senator Chuck Grassley, Judge Julien Neals said a law school intern had used ChatGPT. Judge Henry Wingate said a law clerk had used Perplexity. Neals put his AI ban in writing. Wingate now requires a second review and printouts of cited cases.

    Sources: ABA Journal: 2 federal judges reveal AI use by staff members led to error-riddled opinions, Bloomberg Law: Judges Admit to Using AI After Made-Up Rulings Called Out

  11. · Google

    $15M+ lawsuit

    Robby Starbuck sues Google for $15M over false AI crime claims

    Conservative activist Robby Starbuck sued Google in Delaware Superior Court in October 2025. He alleges that Bard and Gemini described him as a serial sexual abuser and a criminal with a long record. He says the chatbots made up news articles, credited to real journalists, to back the claims. He seeks more than $15 million. Google said most of the claims came from Bard hallucinations it had already addressed. Its spokesperson added that creative prompting can make a chatbot say misleading things. In July 2026, Judge Meghan Adams denied Google's motion to dismiss, so the case moves to discovery. None of the claims have been proven.

    Sources: Bloomberg Law: Google Sued by Robby Starbuck Over False AI-Crafted Biography, Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Conservative Commentator Robby Starbuck's Lawsuit Alleging Google AI Had Defamed Him Can Go Forward, Insurance Journal: Google Ordered to Defend Robby Starbuck's AI Defamation Suit

  12. · Google

    Legal notice to Google

    Google's AI Overviews declares a living Italian surgeon dead

    In October 2025, people searching for the head of orthopedics at a hospital in Negrar, Italy, saw Google's AI Overviews say he had died. He was alive. The hospital believes the AI likely confused him with a family doctor of the same name who had died. It called the error glaring and said it harmed the reputation of both the hospital and the surgeon. Through its lawyers, the hospital sent Google a formal warning. It demanded that Google immediately and permanently remove the false report from AI Overviews, search results and cached pages. It said it would go to court if Google did not act, and might seek damages.

    Sources: ANSA: Negrar smentisce scomparsa primario Claudio Zorzi, 'errore Ia'

  13. · Deloitte Australia

    A$97,587 lost

    Deloitte refunds Australia for a report with fake citations

    In December 2024, Australia's Department of Employment and Workplace Relations hired Deloitte for about A$440,000. The job was to review the IT system that automates welfare penalties. The 237-page report, posted in July 2025, cited academic papers that do not exist. It credited a law professor with a book that does not exist. It also included an invented quote from a federal court judgment. A university researcher found up to 20 errors, and the Australian Financial Review reported them in late August. A corrected version, dated September 26, disclosed that Azure OpenAI was used in writing it. Deloitte agreed to repay the contract's final instalment. It did not say whether AI caused the errors.

    Sources: Associated Press (via Yahoo News): Deloitte to partially refund Australian government for report with apparent AI-generated errors, CFO Dive: Deloitte refunds over $60K for report with AI errors, Australian government says, Australian Greens (media release): Greens slam Deloitte's unethical behaviour and measly refund over AI report bungle

  14. · A Los Angeles lawyer

    $10,000 sanction

    California appeals court fines lawyer $10,000 for fake AI quotes

    A Los Angeles lawyer appealed a loss in an employment-related lawsuit. He wrote drafts of the briefs, ran them through ChatGPT to improve them, and used other AI tools to check them. He did not read the final versions before filing. The court found that 21 of the 23 case quotations in his opening brief were made up, and the reply brief had many more. California's Second District Court of Appeal fined him $10,000, payable to the court, and sent its opinion to the State Bar. It published the opinion as a warning: lawyers must read and verify every citation they file. The other side got no fees, partly because it had not alerted the court to the fakes.

    Sources: California Court of Appeal: Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., 114 Cal.App.5th 426 (2025), CalMatters: California issues historic fine over lawyer's ChatGPT fabrications

  15. · An immigration lawyer in WA

    A$8,371 costs order

    Australian lawyer referred to regulator over Claude-made citations

    In an Australian immigration case, a Western Australian lawyer's submissions cited four cases that did not exist. The immigration minister's legal team could not find them. In an affidavit, the lawyer said he had used Anthropic's Claude to find authorities and Microsoft Copilot to check the submissions. He admitted he had grown overconfident in AI tools and failed to verify the results, and he apologized to the court. On August 15, 2025, the judge ordered him to personally pay the government's costs of A$8,371.30. The judge also referred him to the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia, warning that a good case could be undermined by rank incompetence.

    Sources: The Guardian: WA lawyer referred to regulator after preparing documents with AI-generated case citations that did not exist

  16. · Meta

    $5M suit settled

    Meta settles after its AI tied an activist to the Jan. 6 riot

    In August 2024, a screenshot on X showed Meta AI saying that conservative activist Robby Starbuck took part in the January 6 Capitol riot. The chatbot also linked the activist to QAnon. The activist denies both and says they were in Tennessee that day. On April 29, 2025, they sued Meta for defamation in Delaware state court. The suit sought $5 million in damages, plus punitive damages and an injunction. Meta's chief global affairs officer apologized on X. They said an earlier fix had not addressed the underlying problem. On August 8, 2025, the two sides settled. The only disclosed term: the activist would advise Meta on political bias and hallucinations in its AI.

    Sources: NBC News: Meta executive publicly apologizes to conservative influencer for AI responses, The Hill (via Yahoo News): Meta settles with conservative activist over AI chatbot lawsuit, Fox Business: Robby Starbuck, Meta settle lawsuit over AI chatbot defamation claim

  17. · Butler Snow

    3 lawyers removed

    Three lawyers removed from a prison case over ChatGPT citations

    Butler Snow defends Alabama in lawsuits over its prisons. Its lawyers filed two motions in a suit by an inmate who says officials failed to protect him from repeated stabbings. The motions cited five cases that do not exist. A partner had used ChatGPT to find them, and they were filed unchecked. The judge called the citations "completely made up." On July 23, 2025, Judge Anna Manasco disqualified three of the lawyers from the case. She reprimanded them publicly and referred them to the Alabama State Bar. They must share her order with clients, opposing counsel and judges in all their pending cases. An outside firm rechecked over 2,400 citations in 330 past filings and found no other errors.

    Sources: ABA Journal: 5 hallucinated cases lead federal judge to kick 3 Butler Snow lawyers off case, Associated Press (via Yahoo News): Judge sanctions lawyers defending Alabama's prison system for using fake ChatGPT cases in filings

  18. · ByoPlanet's lawyer

    $85,567 in fees

    Florida lawyer must pay $85,567 after AI invents cases in his filings

    A Florida lawyer represented ByoPlanet International in four related federal suits. In filings across those cases, he cited cases and quotations that generative AI had made up. He kept doing it after the errors were pointed out, including in his response to the court's order to explain. Judge David Leibowitz called it repeated, abusive, bad-faith conduct. He dismissed the four cases, referred the lawyer to the Florida Bar, and required him to attach the order to any new case he files in that court for two years. On July 31, 2025, he ordered the lawyer to pay the defendants $85,567.75 in legal fees within 90 days.

    Sources: Law360 Pulse: Courts 'Turning Up The Heat' On AI Fake Citation Sanctions, US District Court, S.D. Florida (copy in the AI Hallucination Cases database): ByoPlanet International v. Johansson, fee order (July 31, 2025)

  19. · Mike Lindell's lawyers

    $6,000 in fines

    Mike Lindell's lawyers fined $3,000 each over an AI-made filing

    In February 2025, lawyers for MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell filed a motion in a defamation suit brought by a former Dominion Voting Systems employee. It had nearly 30 defective citations, including cases that do not exist and misquoted case law. At a hearing, the lead lawyer admitted they had run it through AI and he had not checked it. He later said a draft had been filed by mistake. Judge Nina Y. Wang of the federal court in Denver rejected that, noting the supposedly correct version also had errors. On July 7, 2025, she fined each of the two lawyers $3,000. A jury had found Lindell liable for defamation the month before.

    Sources: The Colorado Sun: MyPillow CEO's lawyers fined for AI-generated court filing in Denver defamation case, NPR: AI hallucination in Mike Lindell case serves as a stark warning

  20. · A husband's lawyer in Georgia

    Ruling vacated

    Georgia appeals court voids a divorce ruling that cited fake cases

    A woman asked a Georgia trial court to reopen her divorce, saying she was never properly served. The judge denied her petition in an order that cited two cases that do not exist. The order appeared to have been prepared by her husband's lawyer, who had cited the same fake cases. On appeal, that lawyer's brief went further: 11 of its 15 citations were invented or irrelevant, one backing a request for attorney fees. The Court of Appeals said the filings suggested generative AI had been used. On June 30, 2025, it vacated the order, sent the case back for a new hearing, and fined the lawyer $2,500, the most its rules allow.

    Sources: Court of Appeals of Georgia: Shahid v. Esaam, A25A0196 (June 30, 2025), The Register: Georgia court vacates order citing AI-invented caselaw

  21. · A claimant's solicitor in UK

    Referred to regulator

    UK solicitor referred to regulator after a filing cites 18 fake cases

    A man sued Qatar National Bank in London's High Court for £89.4 million over a financing deal. Witness statements from him and his solicitor cited 45 authorities. Eighteen did not exist, and many real ones did not say what was claimed. One fake ruling was attributed to the very judge hearing the case. The client admitted the research came from publicly available AI tools and other online sources. His solicitor had relied on it without checking. On June 6, 2025, a Divisional Court led by Dame Victoria Sharp said lawyers cannot rely on clients for legal research. It declined contempt proceedings but referred the solicitor to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and warned of severe sanctions.

    Sources: Judiciary of England and Wales: Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), AP via KSAT: UK judge warns of risk to justice after lawyers cited fake AI-generated cases in court

  22. · DOGE at Veterans Affairs

    2,000+ contracts flagged

    DOGE's error-prone AI tool flags VA contracts for cancellation

    In March 2025, a DOGE engineer at the Department of Veterans Affairs built an AI tool to sort the agency's contracts. He wrote it the day after he joined. It marked contracts it judged nonessential as munchable. The tool used older OpenAI models and read only about the first 2,500 words of each contract. It flagged more than 2,000 contracts. It often misread contract values, putting over a thousand at $34 million each when some were worth about $35,000. ProPublica found at least two dozen contracts from the list already canceled. The engineer told ProPublica, "I think that mistakes were made." He said staff reviewed every cut. The VA disputed the reporting.

    Sources: ProPublica: DOGE Developed Error-Prone AI to Help Kill Veterans Affairs Contracts

  23. · A lawyer in Israel

    Class action dismissed

    Israeli court throws out a health-fund class action over fake cases

    A nonprofit association asked the Tel Aviv District Court to approve a class action against Israel's health funds, worth at least $1 billion. It said insured people waited unreasonably long for community mental health care. Clalit Health Services argued that the association's lawyer had relied blindly on an AI tool. His filings cited court rulings and legal provisions that do not exist. The lawyer said he had trusted a recognized legal database in good faith. On May 26, 2025, Judge Ilan Daphni dismissed the request. He ruled the lawyer unfit to represent the class and ordered him to pay about $1,320 to a health fund and the same to the state.

    Sources: Ynetnews: Judge dismisses class action lawsuit after attorney cites fake AI-generated precedents

  24. · Anthropic

    Paragraph struck

    Judge strikes part of Anthropic's filing over a Claude citation

    Music publishers are suing Anthropic over song lyrics. Anthropic filed a declaration from one of its data scientists that cited a real journal article. A lawyer at its law firm, Latham & Watkins, had asked Claude to format the citation. Claude kept the right link, volume and pages but gave a wrong title and wrong authors. A manual cite check missed it, and the publishers flagged it as a likely AI hallucination. The firm called it an honest citation mistake, not invented authority. On May 23, 2025, Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen struck the paragraph. She wrote that the error hurt the declaration's overall credibility and weighed it in her ruling.

    Sources: US District Court, N.D. Cal.: Order re sampling protocol, striking in part the Chen declaration (Case 5:24-cv-03811, May 23, 2025), Fortune: Anthropic's lawyer blames Claude for citation mistake in legal filing

  25. · Workday

    Nationwide suit

    Workday must face a nationwide age-bias case over its AI screening

    Employers use Workday's platform to collect and screen job applications. A job seeker alleges its AI recommendation system, which can score, sort, rank or screen applicants, discriminates against people over 40. He says he was rejected for every one of more than 100 jobs he sought through Workday since 2017. Four other applicants over 40 say they were rejected almost every time. On May 16, 2025, Judge Rita Lin let the age claim proceed as a nationwide collective action. It covers applicants 40 and over, since September 2020, who were denied recommendations. Workday suggested the group could number in the hundreds of millions. Workday says its tools don't make hiring decisions. The case is ongoing.

    Sources: US District Court, N.D. Cal.: Mobley v. Workday, Inc., Order Granting Preliminary Collective Certification, Bloomberg Law: Workday AI Bias Suit to Go Forward as Age Claim Class Action, SHRM: The Workday AI Lawsuit Is a Wake-Up Call for HR

  26. · A Toronto estates lawyer

    6-month suspension

    Toronto lawyer faces contempt and suspension over a ChatGPT factum

    At a May 1, 2025 hearing in an Ontario estate dispute, a Toronto lawyer relied on cases that do not exist. Justice Fred Myers could not find them and ordered her to show why she should not be held in contempt. She first said she had not used ChatGPT, then said a student had. The court accepted her apology and remedial steps. In September, after the Law Society began investigating, she admitted she alone had written the factum with ChatGPT. The judge referred her to Ontario's attorney general for criminal contempt proceedings. In July 2026, a Law Society tribunal suspended her license for six months and ordered her to pay C$10,000.

    Sources: Law Times: Toronto lawyer faces criminal contempt proceedings after admitting to misleading court about AI use, Law Times: Law Society Tribunal temporarily suspends lawyer's license after finding she lied about ChatGPT use

  27. · K&L Gates and Ellis George

    $31,100 in sanctions

    K&L Gates and Ellis George pay $31,100 over AI-made citations

    In an insurance lawsuit against State Farm, a lawyer at Ellis George used AI tools to draft an outline for a brief. Lawyers at K&L Gates put it into the filing without checking it. About nine of the brief's 27 citations were wrong, and at least two cited authorities did not exist. Several quotes credited to court rulings were made up. When the special master flagged two bad citations, the lawyers refiled with only those two removed. Retired Magistrate Judge Michael Wilner, acting as special master, struck the brief and barred further discovery on the issue it argued. He ordered the two firms to pay the defense $31,100. He wrote that the AI research had "affirmatively misled me."

    Sources: ABA Journal: Sanctions imposed for 'collective debacle' involving AI hallucinations and 2 firms, including K&L Gates, Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): AI Hallucination in Filings Involving 14th-Largest U.S. Law Firm Lead to $31K in Sanctions

  28. · Cursor

    Subscriptions canceled

    Cursor's support bot invents a login policy, users cancel

    In April 2025, users of Cursor, an AI code editor made by Anysphere, kept getting logged out when they switched between machines. One user wrote to support. A reply signed Sam said this was expected behavior under a new login policy. No such policy existed. The reply came from an AI support bot, and users were not told it was a bot. The answer spread on Reddit and Hacker News, and a wave of users cancelled. A co-founder posted on Reddit that the company had no such policy. They blamed an incorrect answer from a front-line AI support bot. The logouts came from a session bug, since fixed. The user who reported it got a refund. Cursor now labels AI-written support emails.

    Sources: The Register: Cursor AI's own support bot hallucinated its usage policy, Fortune: A customer support AI went rogue—and it's a warning for every company considering replacing workers with automation

  29. · Tromsø municipality

    NOK 1.2M investigation

    Tromsø pauses school-closure plan after ChatGPT invents sources

    The Norwegian city of Tromsø published a 120-page report on merging schools and kindergartens. It underpinned a proposal to close eight schools. In late March 2025, it emerged that only 7 of the report's 18 sources could be traced. One cited book was attributed in part to a professor who denied writing it. The city director apologized, and the public consultation was halted. Chat logs released later showed a city employee had asked ChatGPT for reports backing fewer, larger schools. The city spent about NOK 1.2 million on a PwC investigation. PwC found the city was not ready to use AI, but no sign the fake sources changed the proposal. A department director stepped down over the affair.

    Sources: NRK: Brukte KI for å lage ny skolestruktur i Tromsø: Flere feil oppdaget, NRK: KI-konklusjon klar: Tromsø kommune var ikke moden for å ta i bruk KI, NRK: KI-skandalen i Tromsø: Ansatt ba om kilder som støtter skolenedleggelser

  30. · OpenAI

    GDPR complaint filed

    ChatGPT falsely says a Norwegian man murdered his children

    A Norwegian man asked ChatGPT who he was. It replied that he had killed two of his sons, tried to kill a third and been sentenced to 21 years in prison. None of it was true. The false story was mixed with real details, including how many children he has and his home town. On March 20, 2025, privacy group noyb filed a complaint for him with Norway's data protection authority. It argues the output breaks the GDPR's accuracy rule. It asks the regulator to order OpenAI to delete the output, fix its model and pay a fine. ChatGPT now searches the web for such questions and no longer repeats the claim.

    Sources: noyb: AI hallucinations: ChatGPT created a fake child murderer, LBC: Norwegian man calls for fines after ChatGPT 'hallucinated' that he'd killed his children

  31. · Google

    $110M+ claimed

    Google sued after AI Overviews invent a lawsuit against a firm

    Wolf River Electric is a solar installer in Minnesota. Its complaint says that in September 2024, staff found Google search results stating the state attorney general was suing the company over deceptive sales. Google's AI Overview cited four sources. According to the complaint, none of them named Wolf River. The attorney general had sued other solar companies. In March 2025, Wolf River sued Google for defamation in Ramsey County. It says customers cancelled contracts worth up to $150,000. It puts its losses at $110 million to $210 million. Google said mistakes can happen with new technology and it acted quickly to fix the problem. In January 2026, a federal judge sent the case back to state court.

    Sources: Ramsey County District Court complaint (refiled as D. Minn. ECF 11, copy hosted by PPC Land): LTL LED, LLC d/b/a Wolf River Electric v. Google LLC, Summons and Complaint, U.S. District Court, D. Minnesota (via CourtListener): LTL LED, LLC v. Google LLC, Order (remand), ECF 34, Futurism: Solar Company Sues Google for Giving Damaging Information in AI Overviews

  32. · Morgan & Morgan

    $5,000 fine

    Morgan & Morgan lawyers fined for cases their AI tool invented

    On January 22, 2025, lawyers suing Walmart in a Wyoming federal court filed motions citing nine cases. Eight did not exist. The drafting lawyer had uploaded the motion to MX2.law, Morgan & Morgan's in-house AI platform, and asked it to add case law. The judge ordered the lawyers to explain, and they withdrew the motions the next day. They then admitted an AI platform had invented the cases. On February 24, 2025, the court fined the drafting lawyer $3,000 and removed them from the case. Two other lawyers who signed the motions were fined $1,000 each. The firm itself was not sanctioned. It now requires users to confirm they will verify AI output independently.

    Sources: U.S. District Court, D. Wyoming (via CourtListener): Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc., Order on Sanctions and Other Disciplinary Action, ECF 181, ABA Journal: No. 42 law firm by head count sanctioned over fake case citations generated by AI

  33. · OpenAI

    $31.43 spent

    OpenAI's Operator agent buys $31 of eggs without asking its user

    A Washington Post tech columnist asked OpenAI's new Operator agent to find the cheapest dozen eggs that could be delivered. The columnist did not ask it to buy anything. Operator went to Instacart and bought a dozen eggs anyway, charging the columnist's credit card. With fees and a tip, the total came to $31.43. Operator also reported the total wrongly, as $19.68. OpenAI says Operator should ask the user before any purchase. OpenAI told the Post that Operator had made a mistake and fallen short of its safeguards. It said it was adding stricter confirmation requirements and better detection of unclear requests.

    Sources: NZ Herald (from The Washington Post): I let ChatGPT's new 'agent' manage my life. It spent $55 on a dozen eggs