{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-13T06:21:52.525Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"court-sanction","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"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":"2025-puerto-rico-federal-court-sanctions-soccer-league-lawyers-over-citations-judge-said-bore-ai-hallmarks","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"The judge ordered attorneys José Olmo-Rodríguez and Ibrahim Reyes Gándara to pay $24,492.10 on September 23, 2025, after finding dozens of inaccurate or nonexistent legal citations across four filings.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"A subsequent order issued on September 23, 2025, established the financial penalty at $24,492.10, payable to FIFA and other defendants.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The judge found dozens of inaccurate or nonexistent legal citations across four filings by the league's attorneys and ordered the two attorneys to pay $24,492.10 on 23 September 2025.","causal_attribution":"The court record as reported; the order itself was not read."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Arias-Marxuach said the errors bore hallmarks of generative AI, although both lawyers denied using the technology. He found that they violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to reasonably verify the legal authorities supporting their arguments.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"previously concluded that filings by the plaintiffs’ lawyers contained 55 erroneous citations that appeared to have been generated with artificial intelligence, according to Reuters.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judge said the errors bore hallmarks of generative AI and found a Rule 11 violation for failing to reasonably verify the cited authorities.","causal_attribution":"The AI attribution is the judge's assessment; the sanction rests on the failure to verify."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"although both lawyers denied using the technology","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"However, attorneys José Olmo-Rodríguez and Ibrahim Reyes Gándara have denied using artificial intelligence to prepare the problematic submissions.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Both lawyers have denied using artificial intelligence to prepare the filings.","causal_attribution":"Counterevidence to the AI attribution."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In April 2025, Judge Arias-Marxuach determined that deficiencies in the lawyers' submissions warranted sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the court's inherent authority to address litigation misconduct.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The judge decided in April 2025 that the deficiencies warranted sanctions under Rule 11 and the court's inherent authority.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history of the sanction as reported; no causal claim about AI."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"In an October 6, 2026, filing, soccer's international governing body urged Chief U.S. District Judge Raúl Arias-Marxuach to dismiss the Puerto Rico Soccer League's remaining antitrust claim; The attorneys subsequently proposed paying $1,000 per month beginning October 15","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The plaintiffs' lawyers oppose that request, maintaining that dismissal would unfairly penalise their client for the conduct of its legal representatives.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"FIFA asked the court in an October 2026 filing to dismiss the league's remaining antitrust claim because the sanction had not been paid; the lawyers proposed paying $1,000 a month and argued that dismissal would punish their client.","causal_attribution":"The dismissal request responds to the unpaid sanction; its outcome is pending."}],"effects":[{"label":"two attorneys personally sanctioned $24,492.10 over defective citations","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the client's remaining claim faces a dismissal request over the unpaid sanction","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/fifa-antitrust-lawsuit-ai-citations-sanctions","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full; no translation.","independence_group":"lawcommentary-court-record-oct-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.pymnts.com/cpi-posts/fifa-seeks-to-toss-antitrust-case-over-ai-related-court-sanctions/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full; no translation. PYMNTS attributes its account to Reuters reporting; Reuters itself returned HTTP 401 and was not read.","independence_group":"reuters-fifa-oct-2026-relay"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2026/10/fifa-seeks-dismissal-of-antitrust-lawsuit-over-alleged-ai-misuse/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full; no translation. Its account closely follows the Reuters report relayed by PYMNTS and is grouped with that relay.","independence_group":"reuters-fifa-oct-2026-relay"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Whether any AI tool was used to prepare the filings, and which one.","The text of the April 2025 and September 2025 sanction orders, which were not read.","Whether the court will dismiss the league's remaining claim or accept the instalment plan."],"geography":{"basis":"The filings were made in, and the sanction imposed by, the U.S. District Court before Chief U.S. District Judge Arias-Marxuach in Puerto Rico (Law Commentary: 'a federal judge in Puerto Rico'). The event is recorded under Puerto Rico's ISO code PR, and the court, a U.S. federal district court, under US. The attorneys' residence is not stated.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["PR"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete court sanction on two attorneys for defective citations that the judge said bore hallmarks of generative AI, with the lawyers' denial recorded. The AI involvement is the judge's assessment and is disputed.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-13"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is a court's sanction responding to defective citations that the court attributed to suspected generative AI use. Law Commentary reports that the judge said the errors bore hallmarks of generative AI, and PYMNTS, citing Reuters, reports his conclusion that the 55 erroneous citations appeared to have been generated with AI. Both lawyers deny using AI, no source names a tool, and the sanction itself rests on the failure to verify the citations. Because no AI output is established as reaching the lawyers or the court, the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"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","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-07","aiSystem":"Generative AI that the judge said the defective citations bore hallmarks of; the lawyers deny using AI and no source names a tool","aiProduct":"Unidentified legal research tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Two attorneys were personally ordered to pay $24,492.10 over defective citations the judge said bore hallmarks of generative AI, and their client's remaining claim now faces a dismissal request over the unpaid sum (court record as reported by Law Commentary and Lawyer Monthly)","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two attorneys were ordered to pay the sanction (Law Commentary and Lawyer Monthly name both). They are counted as other people harmed because both deny using AI, so neither is established as a direct AI user. The league is an organisation and is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/fifa-antitrust-lawsuit-ai-citations-sanctions","primarySourceLabel":"Law Commentary, 12 October 2026: FIFA wants antitrust lawsuit dismissed after lawyers sanctioned over suspected AI-generated citations","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-13T03:08:38.415526+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-13T03:08:38.415526+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["legal-citations","court-sanction","rule-11","generative-ai-suspected","consequential-response","puerto-rico"]},{"id":"2025-lacey-insurance-discovery-relief-denied-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 8 para 20: 'I have struck, and decline to'; 'consider, any of the supplemental briefs'; 'I decline to award any of the discovery relief'; p. 7 para 17: 'The initial, undisclosed use of AI products to'; 'generate the first draft of the brief was flat-out wrong.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought because her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research.","causal_attribution":"The order itself connects the struck briefs and denial of relief to counsel's undisclosed AI use, failure to cite-check and re-submission of the defective brief (paras 17-20)."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 2 para 5: 'approximately nine of the 27 legal'; 'citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect in some way. At least two of the'; 'authorities cited do not exist at all.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order records that about nine of the 27 citations in the ten-page brief were incorrect and that at least two cited authorities do not exist.","causal_attribution":"The special master's own after-the-fact review, as recorded in the order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 p. 10 para 24: 'clearly not at fault for the AI debacle'; 'She will not, however, be financially'; para 25: 'I decline to order any sanction'; conclusion: 'aggregate amount of $31,100.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The order makes the two firms jointly and severally pay $31,100 in aggregate, states the client was not at fault and will not be financially responsible for the awards, and declines any sanction against individual lawyers.","causal_attribution":"Allocation of financial responsibility is directly recorded in the order."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, declaration p. 46 para 3: 'generative AI capabilities found in CoCounsel and Westlaw Precision and'; p. 47 para 4: 'It is unclear to me whether'; 'research tools I utilized returned some erroneous information.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied in part on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he cannot tell whether particular errors arose from his transcription or from a tool.","causal_attribution":"The declarant's own statement; the order does not determine which tool produced each error."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ECF 119 appendix, joint response section II p. 76: 'None of the K&L Gates attorneys who worked on the subject brief used any'; order p. 3 para 7: 'the attorneys at K&L Gates didn’t'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The second firm states that none of its lawyers who worked on the brief used or had access to AI tools or knew that AI had been used until the special master's inquiries.","causal_attribution":"The firm's own submission; the order records that the special master had no reason to doubt the sworn statements."}],"effects":[{"label":"Loss of requested discovery relief after the claimant's briefs were struck","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English; read on 2026-10-09 from the retained PDF text of the 77-page filing: order pp. 2-10, appendix inventory p. 11, originating lawyer's declaration pp. 46-47 and the firms' joint response section II p. 76. PDF page 1 yielded no text. Not every appended exhibit was read.","independence_group":"lacey-ecf119"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which tool, if any, produced each erroneous citation or quotation; the declarant says he cannot distinguish his transcription errors from tool output.","Whether the requested discovery relief would have been granted had the briefs been accurate.","The later course of the insurance action and where the AI-assisted drafting took place.","Paragraph 1 of the order (PDF page 1) was not inspected because the page yielded no extractable text."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was issued by a special master in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The record does not state where the AI-assisted drafting took place or where the claimant lives, so event and affected-person countries are left unknown.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"A filed court order directly establishes that the claimant's briefs were struck and her discovery relief denied because of AI-generated false citations in her lawyers' filings, with the monetary award placed on the firms. The tool identities are attributed to the declarant and kept as reported.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The filed order records that a lawyer used AI tools to generate the research outline for the claimant's brief and that the resulting brief contained false citations and quotations (about nine of 27 wrong, at least two non-existent). The special master read those authorities, found they did not exist, and on that basis struck the briefs and denied the discovery relief, writing that the use of AI affirmatively misled him. The declarant names CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini but cannot say which tool produced each error, so the per-tool contribution is unestablished.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Insurance claimant loses discovery relief after her lawyers file AI-generated false citations; special master's order sanctions the two firms $31,100","summary":"In an order dated 5 May 2025 and filed on 6 May in Lacey v. State Farm (C.D. Cal.), a special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research: about nine of 27 citations were wrong and at least two cited authorities did not exist. One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he could not tell whether particular errors came from his transcription or from a tool; co-counsel at the second firm say they used no AI tools and did not know AI had been used. The order makes the two firms jointly pay $31,100, states the client was not at fault and will not bear the awards, and imposes no penalty on individual lawyers.","incidentDate":"2025-04-01","incidentEndDate":"2025-05-05","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-05-06","aiSystem":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, named in one lawyer's sworn declaration as the generative AI tools used for the research outline; the order itself refers to 'various AI tools' and does not establish which tool produced each error","aiProduct":"CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Gemini (reported)","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated citations; the $31,100 award falls on the firms, not on her.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One claimant whose briefs were struck and whose discovery relief was denied (order paras 20 and 24). She did not use the AI tools herself, so participant users is 0. The lawyers and firms bear the monetary award but are not counted as harmed persons.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"assistant","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.lawnext.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/C.D.-Cal.-24-cv-05205-dckt-000119_000-filed-2025-05-06.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Lacey v. State Farm General Insurance Co., C.D. Cal. 2:24-cv-05205, ECF 119: special master's sanctions order dated 5 May 2025, filed 6 May 2025 (with appendix)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T10:29:01.113121+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:12:38.363121+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["historical-2025","ai-citations","court-sanction","legal-research","consequential-response"]}]}