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.
44 incidents closest to “CLARA Litigation” · matched on meaning · public reporting
The xAI data center facilities and gas-turbine power plants emitted air pollution and constant loud noise, interfering with residents' ability to enjoy their homes and diminishing property values.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Attorneys from Ellis George LLP and K&L Gates LLP submitted a brief to a special master in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California containing numerous hallucinated legal citations generated by AI tools including CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision, and Google Gemini. The lawyers failed to verify the citations, and even after being alerted to errors, filed a corrected brief that still contained fake authorities. Special Master Michael Wilner found the conduct tantamount to bad faith, struck the brief, denied discovery relief, and ordered the firms to jointly pay $31,100 in the defendant's legal fees.
3 source articles · read the reporting →
The AI-generated performance evaluation contributed to the teacher's termination.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The Federal Court denied leave to file an AI-generated pleading, delaying the applicant's case.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The data centers and gas turbines emitted constant noise, vibrations, and particulate matter, affecting residents' ability to use and enjoy their properties.
1 source article · read the reporting →
Heather Hersh, an appellate attorney, used generative AI to draft a reply brief in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case. The brief contained multiple fabricated legal quotations and inaccurate assertions. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Hersh failed to verify the AI-generated content and was not candid about her use of AI, imposing a $2,500 monetary sanction under FRAP 46(c) and inherent authority. The court emphasised that attorneys must verify AI outputs and remain honest with the court.
4 source articles · read the reporting →
Generated fake case citations used in a legal brief, misleading the court and opposing parties.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI tool generated fictitious case law citations that were included in a court filing, affecting the plaintiff and the court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fabricated legal citations in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The lawyer submitted AI-generated court documents containing false citations and quotes, harming his client's discrimination case.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fabricated case law that was submitted to the court, affecting the legal proceedings.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fabricated legal citations that were submitted to the court, affecting the defendant and the judicial process.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fake legal citations that were filed in court, wasting the court's and opposing party's time and resources.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fabricated legal citations that were presented to the court, affecting the defendants and the judicial process.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fake legal citations that were included in a court filing, potentially harming the plaintiff's case.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fabricated case law that was included in a court filing, misleading the court and resulting in sanctions against the litigant.
1 source article · read the reporting →
An AI tool generated fictitious legal citations that the appellant included in his appellate brief.
1 source article · read the reporting →
AI-generated fake court precedents were included in a legal appeal, leading to sanctions against the litigant for bad-faith litigation.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fabricated legal citations that were included in a court filing, affecting the defendant's legal representation and the court's resources.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated nonexistent case citations that were filed in court, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) has filed a lawsuit in British Columbia Supreme Court against Caseway AI, alleging that the company's AI chatbot scraped approximately 3.5 million records from CanLII's database in bulk, violating its terms of service and copyright. CanLII claims it adds value to public court records through hyperlinks and corrections, which it says constitute protected copyrighted work. Caseway AI argues the information is public and accessible elsewhere, and that it did not use CanLII's enhancements. The lawsuit was settled in March 2026, with terms undisclosed.
5 source articles · read the reporting →
AI-hallucinated fake quotations were included in court filings submitted by counsel Elizabeth Tate, misleading the court.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The AI generated fake legal citations that were included in a court filing, misleading the court and opposing counsel.
1 source article · read the reporting →
The court imposed monetary sanctions and continuing legal education requirements on plaintiff's counsel for using AI-generated fake legal authorities in a court filing.
1 source article · read the reporting →
