Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Regulatory Action

Russian intellectual property court fined an Udmurtia entrepreneur 5,000 roubles over non-existent case law he said an AI service selected, reports say

Russia's Court for Intellectual Property Rights fined an individual entrepreneur from Udmurtia 5,000 roubles for contempt of court after finding that part of the 12 references to case law in his cassation appeal, including one said to be a Supreme Court position, pointed to court acts that do not exist or attributed conclusions to them, the court's press service told RIA Novosti on 27 August 2026. Rossiyskaya Gazeta reports that the entrepreneur explained he had prepared the appeal with an AI-based service that selected the case law, and that his side argued he had no legal education and could not check the references; the court rejected the argument that the errors were technical. The date of the ruling and the AI service are not reported.

AI system
Unidentified legal research tool
Occurred
Event date unknown
Reported
27 August 2026
Event location
Russia
What the AI did
Communicated with the person · Informed a human decision about the person
Reported harm
Legal HarmFinancial Loss
Whose AI use
Their own AI use
Setting
Justice · Work
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources
3 claims: 3 reported. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: An AI-based service, not named in the reports, that the entrepreneur said selected the case law for his cassation appeal

Reported harm

An entrepreneur was fined 5,000 roubles for contempt of court after his cassation appeal cited non-existent case law that, by his account, an AI-based service had selected.

Outcome

Resolved

The Court for Intellectual Property Rights imposed a court fine of 5,000 roubles on the entrepreneur (court press service via RIA Novosti, 27 August 2026; Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 1 September 2026). No appeal against the fine was found in a news search on 23 October 2026.

What remains unknown

  • The date of the ruling; it was reported on 27 August 2026.
  • Which AI service was used and what it produced beyond the citations described.
  • Whether the fine was appealed.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. By the entrepreneur's own explanation to the court, an AI-based service selected the case law in his cassation appeal, and PRIME (RIA Novosti), reporting the court's press service, describes that case law as generated by AI services; the court's own findings as quoted do not mention AI. The court found that part of the references pointed to court acts that do not exist or misstated them, and fined him for it. The AI service is not named, and its output was read only as described in the reports.

3 claims: 3 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported The Court for Intellectual Property Rights found that part of the 12 case-law references in the entrepreneur's cassation appeal, including one said to be a position of the Supreme Court of Russia, referred to non-existent court acts or attributed conclusions to them, and imposed a court fine of 5,000 roubles.

Causal attribution. The court's findings as relayed by its press service and by Rossiyskaya Gazeta; the ruling itself was not inspected.

  • 1prime.ru(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    Суд установил, что часть из приведенных предпринимателем в тексте кассационной жалобы 12 ссылок на судебную практику, в том числе одна якобы на правовую позицию, изложенную в определении Верховного суда РФ, относилась к несуществующим судебным актам либо содержала приписанные им выводы; наложил на предпринимателя судебный штраф в размере 5 тысяч рублей
  • rg.ru(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    Суд по интеллектуальным правам оштрафовал на пять тысяч рублей индивидуального предпринимателя из Удмуртии, который сослался в своей жалобе на несуществующую практику.
Reported The entrepreneur explained that he had prepared the cassation appeal with an AI-based service, which selected the case law he cited.

Causal attribution. His own explanation to the court, reported by Rossiyskaya Gazeta; the press service describes the case law as generated by AI services.

  • rg.ru(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    Бизнесмен пояснил, что при подготовке кассационной жалобы использовал сервис, работающий на основе искусственного интеллекта.; Именно нейросеть подобрала судебную практику
  • 1prime.ru(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    несуществующую судебную практику, сгенерированную сервисами искусственного интеллекта
Reported His side argued that he had no legal education and could not check the references, and that the inaccuracies were technical errors caused by using AI services rather than contempt of court; the court rejected these arguments.

Causal attribution. The appellant's defence and the court's rejection, as reported.

  • rg.ru(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    Защита предпринимателя заявила, что у него нет юридического образования, поэтому он не мог самостоятельно оценить корректность ссылок.; Оправдаться не получилось.
  • 1prime.ru(opens in new tab) supports · Russian
    представитель заявителя жалобы уверял, что допущенные им неточности и технические ошибки вследствие использования сервисов искусственного интеллекта не свидетельствуют о неуважении к суду; СИП критически оценил аргументы заявителя

Sources

2 sources inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in Russian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200) and translated by that agent; no human translator or reviewer read it. PRIME (RIA Novosti group) report of 27 Aug 2026 quoting the court's press service (bodies/ru-prime-sip.html/.txt). Applies to s1.

Read in Russian by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200) and translated by that agent; no human translator or reviewer read it. Rossiyskaya Gazeta report of 1 Sep 2026 that quotes the court's ruling and describes the parties' explanations (bodies/ru-rg-neiroset.html/.txt). Applies to s2.

Event countries: Russia. Affected-person countries: Russia. Court countries: Russia.

The recorded events are court events in Russia: the appeal was filed with, and the fine imposed by, Russia's Court for Intellectual Property Rights (PRIME; Rossiyskaya Gazeta). Both reports describe the entrepreneur as being from Udmurtia, a Russian region.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-23: Published as a core case (communicated_with, with informed_decision_about): by his own account an AI-based service selected case law for an entrepreneur's cassation appeal, part of it did not exist, and the court fined him 5,000 roubles, as reported from the court's press service and the ruling.

People described

An individual entrepreneur from Udmurtia, Russia, the appellant in a franchise dispute (not named in this record)

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the entrepreneur who used the AI service and was fined (court press service; Rossiyskaya Gazeta).

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#hallucinated-citations#court-filing#court-fine#russia#russian-language

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Russian intellectual property court fined an Udmurtia entrepreneur 5,000 roubles over non-existent case law he said an AI service selected, reports say. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-udmurtia-entrepreneur-fined-by-russian-intellectual-property-court-over-ai-invented-case-law

BibTeX

@misc{2026_udmurtia_entrepreneur_fined_by_russian_intellectual_property_court_over_ai_invented_case_law,
  title = {Russian intellectual property court fined an Udmurtia entrepreneur 5,000 roubles over non-existent case law he said an AI service selected, reports say},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-udmurtia-entrepreneur-fined-by-russian-intellectual-property-court-over-ai-invented-case-law}
}

Related cases

Low Unidentified legal research tool (suspected)

Puerto Rico federal judge sanctions a soccer league's lawyers over 55 defective citations he said bore hallmarks of generative AI; the lawyers deny using AI

In an antitrust lawsuit that the Puerto Rico Soccer League brought against FIFA, CONCACAF and Puerto Rican football officials, Chief U.S. District Judge Raúl Arias-Marxuach found dozens of inaccurate or nonexistent legal citations across four filings by the league's two attorneys. According to Law Commentary, he said the errors bore hallmarks of generative AI and found that the lawyers violated Rule 11 by failing to reasonably verify the authorities they cited. Lawyer Monthly reports that the sanctions were decided in April 2025 and that an order of 23 September 2025 set the penalty at $24,492.10, payable to FIFA and the other defendants. Both lawyers have denied using artificial intelligence. In an October 2026 filing FIFA asked the court to dismiss the league's remaining claim because the sanction had not been paid. The lawyers proposed paying $1,000 a month, cited financial difficulties and an injury one of them suffered in March 2026, and argued that dismissal would punish their client for penalties imposed on them personally. The court had not ruled on the dismissal request when these reports were published.

Medium Unidentified AI research tool

Alabama Supreme Court dismisses two siblings' family-trust appeal as a sanction after their lawyer admits using AI that produced fake citations

On 24 April 2026 the Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed an appeal by two siblings in a family dispute over living trusts because their lawyer, W. Perry Hall, had filed briefs in which most of the legal authorities were misquoted or did not exist. The court said they appeared to be AI hallucinations, and at a show-cause hearing in February 2026 Hall admitted that many authorities did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them. The court ordered Hall to pay the opposing party's fees and costs of $17,200 and double appeal costs, barred him from filing in the court without a co-signing attorney and referred him to the Alabama State Bar. It said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts. One justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part, objected to dismissing the appeal as a sanction for the lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the judgment against the clients on the merits.

Medium vLex, Paxton AI and NotebookLM (reported)

New York federal court enters default judgment against a defendant and orders its lawyer to pay $38,877 after false citations it found AI produced

In a federal trademark suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the court on 5 February 2026 struck a company defendant's motion papers and entered default judgment against it as a sanction on its lawyer, after his filings repeatedly cited nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations. The lawyer said he had found and cite-checked cases with AI tools (vLex and Paxton AI) and used NotebookLM to review a later submission; the court rejected his explanations and found he acted in bad faith. On 9 October 2026 the court described the citations as produced by generative AI and ordered the lawyer to pay $38,877.59 in fees and costs to the firm of a co-defendant's former lawyer, who had reported the false citations to the court.

Medium CoCounsel

Sixth Circuit removes court-appointed defence lawyer over CoCounsel-drafted briefs with false quotations, delaying an indigent defendant's appeal

In a published opinion of 3 April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed the briefs a lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act had filed for an indigent defendant appealing a sentencing enhancement in a drug-trafficking case. The court noticed that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results' and found three quotations that appear in no legal authority and misstatements of two precedents. The lawyer admitted that a staff member had used Westlaw's CoCounsel to create the first draft, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the false quotations came from artificial intelligence he did not verify. The court denied him compensation for the appeal, referred the opinion for possible disciplinary proceedings and to the Kentucky Bar Association, and by separate order removed him, locked his briefs and ordered replacement counsel to file new ones, which it said further delayed resolution of the defendant's appeal. The court acknowledged his candour and his 40 years without discipline.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents