ООО «Точка опоры» v. ООО «ЦСС» (West Siberian District AC): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Fine
The AI system generated fake legal citations that were submitted to the court, resulting in a fine for contempt.
- Company involved
- ООО «ЦСС»
1 source article · read the reporting →
Google seeks dismissal of class-action lawsuit over AI data scraping
Google is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that it violated the privacy and property rights of millions of internet users by scraping publicly available data to train its AI chatbot, Bard. The lawsuit, filed in July 2023, claims that Google's privacy policy change allowed data scraping for AI training without consent. Google has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that using publicly available information is not stealing and that the lawsuit threatens generative AI.
- Company involved
- Google
- AI system involved
- Bard
5 source articles · read the reporting →
OpenAI sued for defamation after ChatGPT fabricates legal accusations
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.
- Company involved
- OpenAI
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
10 source articles · read the reporting →
BC Tribunal Confirms Companies Remain Liable for AI Chatbot-Created Information - Lexology
The AI chatbot provided inaccurate information to a user.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Lawyer used ChatGPT to cite fake cases in BC parenting application
In a British Columbia Supreme Court case, lawyer Chong Ke used ChatGPT to generate legal case citations for a notice of application in a parenting dispute. The citations were fictitious and were discovered by opposing counsel, who incurred costs investigating them. Ke later acknowledged the error, apologized, and withdrew the fake cases before the hearing. The court considered whether to order special costs against Ke personally.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
9 source articles · read the reporting →
California judge sanctions law firms for using AI to generate fake legal citations
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.
- Company involved
- K&L Gates
- AI system involved
- Google Gemini, Westlaw Precision with CoCounsel
5 source articles · read the reporting →
Anthropic ordered to respond over alleged AI-hallucinated citation in court filing
A US federal magistrate judge has ordered Anthropic to respond to music publishers' claim that a court filing by Anthropic data scientist Olivia Chen cited a fictitious academic article that may have been generated by Anthropic's AI tool Claude. The publishers' lawyer said he had confirmed with the named author and journal that the article did not exist. Anthropic's lawyer disputed this, saying it was a mis-citation rather than an AI hallucination. The filing was made in an ongoing copyright case brought by Universal Music Group, Concord, and ABKCO against Anthropic over the use of song lyrics to train Claude.
- Company involved
- Anthropic
- AI system involved
- Claude
5 source articles · read the reporting →
Center for Investigative Reporting Sues OpenAI, Microsoft Over Copyright
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.
- Company involved
- OpenAI and Microsoft
6 source articles · read the reporting →
Utah's online dispute resolution system leads to default judgments against defendants
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.
- Company involved
- Utah State Courts
- AI system involved
- Utah Online Dispute Resolution System
4 source articles · read the reporting →
Authors sue OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement over AI training
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.
- Company involved
- OpenAI
- AI system involved
- Large language model (ChatGPT)
8 source articles · read the reporting →
Thomson Reuters wins copyright lawsuit against AI startup Ross Intelligence
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.
- Company involved
- Ross Intelligence
- AI system involved
- Ross Intelligence
4 source articles · read the reporting →
Tyrone Walker v. Juliane Pierre (CA Massachusetts): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Struck from the record
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 →
Kansas judge fines lawyers $12,000 for AI-generated fake citations in patent case
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.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
2 source articles · read the reporting →
Ninth Circuit Sanctions Attorneys Over AI-Hallucinated Legal Briefs
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.
- Company involved
- Sethi Law Group
2 source articles · read the reporting →
Mississippi Judge Removes All Attorneys Over AI-Hallucinated Citations
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.
- AI system involved
- First Drafts
2 source articles · read the reporting →
Zillow faces securities class action over Zillow Offers wind-down
Zillow Group, Inc. is accused of making false and misleading statements to investors about its Zillow Offers home-flipping business. The company allegedly failed to disclose that its forecasting algorithm was unable to predict home prices accurately, leading to a $304 million inventory write-down and a decision to wind down the business. Investors who bought shares between February 10 and November 2, 2021, suffered losses when the stock price dropped after the announcement. A class action lawsuit has been filed in Washington federal court.
- Company involved
- Zillow Group, Inc.
- AI system involved
- Zillow Offers
10 source articles · read the reporting →
User loses lawsuit against tech company over AI-generated inaccurate information
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 →
Herbert Brooks v. Lowes Home Centers LLC (W.D. Louisiana): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction; CLE
Generated a legal brief with hallucinated case law, filed in court.
- AI system involved
- Claude
1 source article · read the reporting →
CommNV vs Uprise (Nevada DC): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Penalty OR Order to volunteer and teach about AI…
The AI system generated fabricated legal citations that were included in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
- Company involved
- Christopher Day
1 source article · read the reporting →
Florida attorney general asks court to bar OpenAI from developing new models in child-harm lawsuit
ChatGPT's responses allegedly contributed to violent incidents involving minors.
- Company involved
- OpenAI
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT
1 source article · read the reporting →
Estate of Suzanne Adams sues OpenAI for wrongful death
The Estate of Suzanne Adams has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, Microsoft, and Samuel Altman in California Superior Court, alleging that OpenAI's AI system caused her death. The complaint asserts claims for strict product liability, negligence, wrongful death, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The case is pending.
- Company involved
- OpenAI
7 source articles · read the reporting →
Del Biaggio v. Bansen (CA California (4d)): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction
The AI generated fake legal citations that were included in an appellate brief, affecting the court and the client.
- Company involved
- Carlton Floyd
1 source article · read the reporting →
Lawsuit alleges OpenAI's ChatGPT-4o caused death of Joshua Enneking
Karen Enneking has filed a product liability lawsuit against OpenAI, Inc. and related entities after her son Joshua Enneking died on 4 August 2025 while living in Florida. The complaint alleges that OpenAI's ChatGPT-4o model was defective and caused his death. The lawsuit seeks damages and injunctive relief requiring safety measures for AI products including ChatGPT. The case is pending in San Francisco County Superior Court.
- Company involved
- OpenAI, Inc.
- AI system involved
- ChatGPT-4o
6 source articles · read the reporting →
Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association (CA Florida (2d)): AI-hallucinated content in court filing, Monetary Sanction; Adverse Costs…
The AI generated false legal citations that were included in a court filing, misleading the court.
1 source article · read the reporting →