Incidents gathered from public reporting around the world. Each one links to the articles it came from. None of it is a finding that anyone broke the law.
Reports people file about their own experience are not shown here and never will be without their agreement. Tell us what happened to you.
116 incidents closest to “CLARA Litigation” · matched on meaning · public reporting
The system generated fake legal citations that were included in a court filing, potentially misleading the court and prejudicing the client's case.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated false legal citations and quotations in an appellate brief, misleading the court and harming the client's immigration appeal.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated legal briefs containing fabricated citations, which were submitted to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
AI generated fabricated legal citations in a court filing by Shahryar Mazaheri.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fabricated legal citations that were submitted to the bankruptcy court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The court granted a motion to dismiss and imposed sanctions on plaintiff's counsel for submitting a brief with AI-hallucinated fake cases.
1 source article · read the reporting →
AI generated hallucinated legal citations that were filed in court, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fabricated legal citations that were included in a court filing, affecting the court and the opposing party.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI system generated fake legal citations that were included in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated false legal quotations that were submitted to the court in a legal brief.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fictitious legal citations that were submitted to the court in a legal filing.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fictitious legal authorities and arguments that were filed in a court motion, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI system generated legal briefs containing fabricated case citations, which were filed in court, affecting the court and the opposing party.
1 source article · read the reporting →
AI-generated fake legal citations were submitted to the court, affecting the plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's legal costs.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI system generated fake legal citations that were submitted to the court, resulting in a fine for contempt.
1 source article · read the reporting →
OpenAI is being sued for defamation by Mark Walters, a radio host in Georgia, after ChatGPT generated false information accusing him of defrauding and embezzling funds from a non-profit organization. The false output was created in response to a journalist's request to summarize a real court case. Walters filed the lawsuit on June 5, 2023, in Georgia's Superior Court of Gwinnett County, seeking unspecified damages. The case is believed to be the first defamation lawsuit against OpenAI over ChatGPT's fabrications.
10 source articles · read the reporting →
Two law firms submitted a supplemental brief containing fake legal citations generated by AI systems including Google Gemini and Westlaw's CoCounsel. Judge Michael Wilner imposed $31,000 in sanctions after discovering the citations were fabricated. The lawyers admitted using AI without proper review or disclosure.
5 source articles · read the reporting →
The Center for Investigative Reporting, publisher of Mother Jones and Reveal, has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft in federal court, alleging the companies used its copyrighted articles without permission or compensation to train their AI products. The nonprofit argues that the AI-generated summaries of its stories threaten journalism and violate the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
6 source articles · read the reporting →
Utah's online dispute resolution system for small claims cases automatically enters default judgments against defendants who fail to register within 14 days. Samantha Thompson missed the buried notice in her summons and was ordered to pay $995.42 plus wage garnishment. The system has increased default judgment rates, especially for payday lenders. Critics say the confusing paperwork disadvantages low-income litigants.
4 source articles · read the reporting →
In January 2024, journalists and authors Nicholas Basbanes and Nick Gage sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement. The lawsuit alleges that the companies used their published journalism to train large language models without permission or compensation. The case has been folded into a class action brought by the Authors Guild. The AI firms have denied any wrongdoing, and the case is still making its way through the legal system.
8 source articles · read the reporting →
In 2020, Thomson Reuters filed a copyright lawsuit against legal AI startup Ross Intelligence, alleging that Ross reproduced materials from its Westlaw legal research service. In February 2025, a US District Court judge ruled in Thomson Reuters' favor, finding that Ross infringed copyright and that fair use did not apply. Ross Intelligence had shut down in 2021 due to litigation costs.
4 source articles · read the reporting →
A Kansas federal judge fined four lawyers a total of $12,000 for filing court documents containing non-existent quotations and case citations generated by ChatGPT. The lawyers, representing patent holder Lexos Media IP, failed to verify the AI's output, which included hallucinated legal authorities. The judge imposed fines ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 and ordered one lawyer to report the incident to state disciplinary authorities. The sanctioned attorneys acknowledged the error and stated that firms should implement strict policies for AI use.
2 source articles · read the reporting →
The Ninth Circuit sanctioned immigration attorneys from Sethi Law Group after they filed briefs containing AI-generated false cases and quotations. The court imposed monetary sanctions, a six-month suspension from Ninth Circuit practice, and referred the matter to the California State Bar. The court also required future filings to disclose AI use and certify that all citations were verified. The case is Lnu v. Blanche.
2 source articles · read the reporting →
In Withers v. City of Aberdeen, a contract dispute, both sides' attorneys submitted briefs containing fabricated case citations generated by AI tools. The court identified six non-existent citations and sanctioned all four attorneys, revoking pro hac vice admissions, imposing fines, and referring them to state bars. The drafting attorneys had used AI research and drafting tools without verifying outputs, while local counsel signed filings without review. The ruling emphasises that attorneys cannot delegate verification duties to AI and that ignorance of AI risks is no defence.
2 source articles · read the reporting →
