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 “Everlaw AI Assistant” · matched on meaning · public reporting
The AI-generated hallucinated citations in an expert report led to the exclusion of the expert and dismissal of the plaintiff's case.
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 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 fictitious legal citations that were submitted to the court in a legal filing.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Answer.AI's team tested Devin, an autonomous AI coding assistant, on 20 real-world tasks over a month. Devin succeeded in only 3 tasks, failed 14, and was inconclusive in 3. The team found Devin often produced overly complex or hallucinated solutions and could not recognize fundamental blockers. They ultimately decided to stick with tools that allow more human control.
5 source articles · read the reporting →
Brazilian authorities are investigating federal judge Jefferson Rodrigues after he published a ruling that contained incorrect legal citations and precedents, which he attributed to the use of AI tool ChatGPT. The National Justice Council summoned the judge to explain the errors, which included wrongly attributing past decisions to the Superior Court of Justice. Rodrigues described the mistakes as a "mere mistake" caused by work overload. This is reported as the first such case in Brazil.
8 source articles · read the reporting →
The system intercepted and analyzed customer service calls of Home Depot customers without their consent.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI chatbot provided inaccurate information to a user.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The FTC took action against DoNotPay, a company that claimed to offer an AI service that was 'the world's first robot lawyer.' The company promised to generate legal documents and replace human lawyers, but the FTC alleged it failed to test its AI output and did not hire any attorneys. DoNotPay agreed to a settlement requiring it to pay $193,000 and notify consumers about the limitations of its service.
7 source articles · read the reporting →
EvenUp, a legal tech startup valued at $1 billion, uses AI to draft personal injury demand letters. Former employees revealed that the AI system frequently makes errors, including missing injuries and fabricating medical conditions. The company defends its hybrid approach with human oversight, but critics allege overpromised AI capabilities.
6 source articles · read the reporting →
The State Bar of California admitted that it used artificial intelligence to develop multiple-choice questions for the February 2025 bar exam. The AI-generated questions were created by ACS Ventures, the Bar's psychometrician, and were reviewed by content panels. Test takers had complained about technical problems and irregularities, and the admission has sparked further outrage. The State Bar is asking the California Supreme Court to adjust test scores, and the Committee of Bar Examiners will meet in May to discuss remedies.
7 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 →
LinkedIn removed at least two AI 'co-worker' accounts whose profile images said they were '#OpenToWork'. One account named Ella claimed it would outperform any social media team and needed no coffee breaks. The article does not specify further consequences.
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 →
A Dutch privacy probe into election advice has appeared to expose early violations of the EU AI Act's rules for general-purpose AI models by OpenAI, xAI and Mistral, according to MLex. The companies' chatbots provided distorted voting advice to users. The findings were shared with the European Commission and could prompt future scrutiny or litigation.
6 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 →
The AI generated nonexistent legal citations that were included in a court filing, causing the court to strike them from the appellant's brief.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Summer Yue, a senior Meta executive and head of AI Safety & Alignment, was using the open-source AI agent OpenClaw to manage her Gmail inbox. She instructed the agent to wait for confirmation before deleting any emails, but during a compaction of her large inbox, the agent lost the instruction and deleted over 200 emails. Yue was unable to stop the process from her phone and had to manually terminate the agent on her computer. The AI later apologized for violating the instruction.
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 →
Google is accused in a class-action lawsuit of secretly activating its Gemini AI assistant for Gmail, Chat, and Meet users in October 2025, enabling it to collect private communications data without consent. The suit alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Google has not responded to the allegations.
4 source articles · read the reporting →
In June 2025, a user asked an AI chatbot about university admission information. The AI generated inaccurate details about a campus and claimed it would pay 100,000 yuan if wrong. The user sued the company for 9,999 yuan, but the Hangzhou Internet Court dismissed the case, ruling that the AI's output did not constitute a binding promise and the company was not at fault.
4 source articles · read the reporting →
Generated a legal brief with hallucinated case law, filed in court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
