{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-11-07T02:12:58.887Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"arizona","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2026","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-arizona-appeals-court-strikes-self-represented-appellants-ai-hallucinated-citations-orders-fees-sanction","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In his opening brief with the Court of Appeals, he made eight citations. The court found that six of them were deficient; two were cases that “simply do not exist.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The self-represented appellant's opening brief made eight citations; the court found six deficient, including two cases that do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings as reported by the Arizona Mirror."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"readily acknowledged that he relied on generative AI to write his brief; he admitted he did nothing to independently verify the citations","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations he acknowledged relying on generative AI to write the brief and admitted doing nothing to verify the citations.","causal_attribution":"The appellant's own acknowledgement, recorded in the opinion and reported by the Arizona Mirror."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Accordingly, citing a hallucinated case in a legal filing is sanctionable conduct; traceable to dealing with the fake citations; appeal was also rejected because there were no supportive legal authorities for his claims once the inaccurate and false citations were stricken","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that citing a hallucinated case is sanctionable regardless of intent, ordered him to pay the portion of the other party's attorney's fees traceable to the fake citations, and rejected the appeal because no supportive authority remained once the citations were struck.","causal_attribution":"The court's ruling as reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The three-judge panel noted that court rules allow for more severe sanctions, including contempt charges and monetary fines.; isn’t a trained legal professional, it opted to narrowly sanction him","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court chose this narrow sanction over contempt or fines because he said he did not intend to deceive and is not a trained legal professional.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning as reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"brief citations struck, appeal rejected and fee sanction ordered","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://kiowacountypress.net/content/arizona-court-appeals-citing-fake-ai-generated-cases-can-get-you-sanctioned-no-matter-your","kind":"news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-18 (HTTP 200); no translation was needed. Republication of the Arizona Mirror (States Newsroom) report.","independence_group":"arizona-mirror-report-jul-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which generative AI tool the appellant used.","The amount of the fee award, which depended on the other party's documentation."],"geography":{"basis":"The brief was filed in, and the sanction imposed by, the Arizona Court of Appeals in a Maricopa County probate appeal. Residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the Arizona Mirror's report of the Court of Appeals opinion of 15 July 2026: a self-represented appellant acknowledged relying on generative AI to write a brief that cited nonexistent cases, and the court struck the citations, rejected the appeal and ordered him to pay the fees they caused. The parties are private persons and are not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-18"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The appellant acknowledged in a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations that he relied on generative AI to write his opening brief, which the court found cited two nonexistent cases and misstated others; the AI-generated text reached him (communicated_with), and the court read the fabricated citations, struck them, rejected the appeal for want of authority and imposed a fee sanction for them (informed_decision_about). The tool is not named.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Arizona appeals court strikes a self-represented appellant's AI-hallucinated citations, rejects his probate appeal and orders him to pay fees as a sanction","summary":"In a published opinion of July 2026, the Arizona Court of Appeals found that a self-represented appellant's opening brief in a probate dispute contained eight citations, six of them deficient, including two cases that do not exist. In a written explanation and at a hearing on the false citations he acknowledged relying on generative AI to write the brief and said he did nothing to verify the citations. The court struck the inaccurate and false citations, rejected the appeal because no supportive authority remained, held that citing a hallucinated case is sanctionable whether or not it is intended, and ordered him to pay the share of the other party's attorney's fees traceable to the fake citations. Because he said he did not intend to deceive and is not legally trained, the court chose this narrow sanction over contempt or fines. It described the opinion as the first published Arizona ruling on generative AI hallucinations in filings.","incidentDate":"2026-07-15","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-07-19","aiSystem":"Generative AI, not identified in the report, that the appellant said he relied on to write his opening brief, which cited two nonexistent cases and misstated others","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court, the appellant's AI-drafted brief cited nonexistent cases; the citations were struck, the appeal was rejected and he was ordered to pay the share of the other party's attorney's fees caused by the fake citations.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used generative AI and was sanctioned.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AZ","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://kiowacountypress.net/content/arizona-court-appeals-citing-fake-ai-generated-cases-can-get-you-sanctioned-no-matter-your","primarySourceLabel":"Arizona Mirror (States Newsroom), republished by Kiowa County Press, July 2026: Arizona Court of Appeals on sanctions for fake AI-generated cases","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-18T03:14:48.762612+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-18T03:14:48.762612+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated-citations","self-represented-litigant","appeal","sanction","attorney-fees","arizona"]},{"id":"2026-arizona-federal-court-dismisses-apparently-ai-generated-workplace-complaint-bars-ai-drafting","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The complaint appears to have been generated'; 'by artificial intelligence (“AI”) as it resembles other AI-generated complaints the court has'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court stated that the complaint appears to have been generated by artificial intelligence because it resembles other AI-generated complaints the court has encountered.","causal_attribution":"Statement in the court's order of 6 October 2026; the order records an appearance, not an admission or a finding of who drafted the complaint."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'complaint qualifies as a forbidden “shotgun pleading.”'; 'is prohibited from using AI to draft her'; 'IT IS ORDERED the complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. No later than October'; '19, 2026, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint of no more than 25 pages that is not'; 'drafted using AI tools. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal with'; 'prejudice in the event no amended complaint is filed by that date.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court dismissed the complaint as a shotgun pleading, granted leave to file an amended complaint of no more than 25 pages by 19 October 2026, prohibited the plaintiff from using AI to draft it and directed entry of a judgment of dismissal with prejudice if none is filed.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the court's order; the AI-drafting prohibition is the court's response to the complaint's apparent AI origin."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'filed a 67-page complaint that'; 'includes 199 separate paragraphs.'; 'brings this action principally under Title'; 'claim as one for “hostile work environment.”'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The complaint, filed on 11 September 2026, ran to 67 pages and 199 paragraphs and was brought principally under Title VII's anti-retaliation provision, while also describing a hostile work environment claim.","causal_attribution":"Description of the complaint in the court's order."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'with filings in this matter must attach to the subject filing a separate declaration disclosing'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order also sets the judge's standing requirement that any party using generative AI in filings attach a declaration disclosing that use and certifying personal review of the filing.","causal_attribution":"Case-management requirement stated in the order; context, applies to all parties."}],"effects":[{"label":"workplace complaint dismissed and the plaintiff barred from using AI to draft the amended complaint","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1517524/gov.uscourts.azd.1517524.6.0.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 from the RECAP copy of the order (text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the order. HTTP 200.","independence_group":"d-ariz-cv-26-08218-order-doc-6"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Whether the plaintiff or anyone else used an AI tool to draft the complaint, and which tool; the order states only that the complaint appears AI-generated.","Whether the plaintiff is self-represented; the order does not say.","The plaintiff's employer and workplace; the order names only the defendant and does not describe the employment.","Whether an amended complaint will be filed by 19 October 2026 and what follows."],"geography":{"basis":"The event is the filing and dismissal of the complaint in the US District Court for the District of Arizona (order caption and text), so the filing and the court's decision took place in the US. The order gives no residence or workplace location for the plaintiff, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a consequential-response case on the court's own order: a federal judge in Arizona dismissed a workplace complaint that the court said appeared to be AI-generated and barred the plaintiff from using AI to draft the amended complaint. The dismissal and the prohibition are documented by the order; the AI origin is the court's stated appearance, recorded as suspected. The plaintiff is a private party and is not named in the public text.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The reported harm is the court's response to the complaint's apparent AI origin. The order states that the complaint 'appears to have been generated by artificial intelligence' because it resembles other AI-generated complaints the court has encountered, dismisses it for the defects the court describes (voluminous, repetitive allegations, shifting claims, discussions of law and missing exhibits) and prohibits the plaintiff from using AI to draft the amended complaint. The apparently AI-generated text informed the court's decision about the plaintiff (informed_decision_about): the court read the complaint, attributed its form to AI, dismissed it and imposed an AI-specific drafting restriction. The court's attribution rests on its comparison with other complaints; no admission, tool or drafter is identified, so the status is suspected.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Arizona federal court dismisses a Title VII complaint it says appears AI-generated and bars the plaintiff from using AI to draft the amended complaint","summary":"On 6 October 2026 a judge of the US District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed a 67-page, 199-paragraph workplace complaint filed on 11 September 2026, saying it appeared to have been generated by artificial intelligence because it resembled other AI-generated complaints the court had encountered. The court dismissed it as a shotgun pleading that did not give the defendant or the court sufficient notice of the claims, which it said shifted between Title VII retaliation, hostile work environment and retaliatory hostile work environment. It granted leave to file an amended complaint of no more than 25 pages by 19 October 2026, prohibited the plaintiff from using AI to draft it and directed entry of a judgment of dismissal with prejudice if no amended complaint is filed. The order does not establish who drafted the complaint or name any AI tool.","incidentDate":"2026-10-06","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-09","aiSystem":"Unidentified generative AI tool that the court said the complaint appeared to have been generated by; no tool is named and the plaintiff's use is not established in the order","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The plaintiff's employment complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and the court barred the plaintiff from using AI to draft the amended complaint, which must be filed by 19 October 2026 in no more than 25 pages or the case will be dismissed with prejudice (D. Ariz. order, 6 October 2026). The court said the complaint appeared to be AI-generated; the order does not establish who drafted it.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the plaintiff whose complaint was dismissed and who was barred from using AI to draft the amended complaint. Counted outside direct AI users because the order says only that the complaint appears to have been generated by AI and does not establish who drafted it. The defendant is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1517524/gov.uscourts.azd.1517524.6.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"US District Court, D. Ariz., No. CV-26-08218-PCT-KML, order (Doc. 6) signed 6 Oct 2026, filed 7 Oct 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:12:35.558091+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:12:35.558091+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["apparent_ai_generated_filing","courts","dismissal","federal_court","employment","united_states","arizona"]}]}