{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T17:38:23.998Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"hallucination","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2026","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":3,"coverage":{"cases":3,"countries":2,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":2,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":3,"mixedRelations":2,"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-israel-magistrates-court-strikes-expert-report-resting-on-ai-hallucinated-case-law-costs","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'התרשלה בתפקידה כנאמנת'; 'ביום 10.3.26הגישה הנתבעת 2חוות דעת'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, a lawyer acting as trustee, negligently transferred estate money to another person's account; the defendant filed a third-party notice against two banks and, on 10 March 2026, a banking expert's opinion.","causal_attribution":"The decision's own account of the pleadings; the negligence claim is an allegation in a continuing suit."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'מבוססת על פסיקה ,חקיקה וספרות פיקטיביות שהומצאו ע\"י בינה מלאכותית ,ובכלל זה פסק דין שאינו קיים'; 'כאשר שאלת השימוש בבינה מלאכותית מקומה להתברר בחקירה נגדית'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"One bank asked the court to strike the opinion as resting on case law, legislation and literature invented by artificial intelligence, including a ruling that does not exist; the defendant replied that the question of AI use should be examined in cross-examination.","causal_attribution":"The parties' submissions as recorded by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'הליך שלא ניתן לאתרו לפי מספר או שם הצדדים'; 'מבדיקה עצמאית לא נמצא כי קיים ספר ,מאמר או ציטוט כזה'; 'מבלי שהוגשה התייחסותו של המומחה לטענות המופנות כנגד חוות דעתו ,ומחדל זה פועל לחובתה של הנתבעת'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Checking the sources itself, the court could not locate the cited Supreme Court ruling by number or party names, found no book, article or quotation matching the cited legal text, and found that the quoted statutory sections say something else; the defendant filed no response from the expert.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings after its own check of the sources."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'משנמצא כי לב חוות הדעת והנספחים המצורפים אליה נשענים על \"הזיות בינה מלאכותית\" מובהקות ועל עיוות מוחלט של לשון חוק שירותי תשלום'; 'הגשת חוות דעת המבוססת על הזיות של בינה מלאכותית מהווה פגם מהותי המצדיק את הוצאתה המידית מהתיק עוד לפני שלב ההוכחות'; 'ומורה על מחיקת חוות דעתו'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that the heart of the opinion and its annexes rest on clear AI hallucinations and a distortion of the statute, that an opinion resting on AI hallucinations is a substantive defect justifying its removal before the evidence stage, and struck it from the file.","causal_attribution":"The court attributes the defects to AI hallucinations; that attribution rests on the invented content, with no admission or named tool."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'שעה שהתיקון של ההודעה לצד שלישי מבוסס על חוות דעת המומחה מטעם המודיעה ,חוות דעת שמצאתי אותה פגומה והוריתי על מחיקתה מהתיק'; 'דין הבקשה לתיקון ההודעה לצד שלישי להידחות'; 'תישא בהוצאות הבקשות לטובת הצד דים השלישיים בסך של'; '₪ 2,500לכל אחד מהם בנפרד'; 'ניתנה היום ,כ\"ז תשרי תשפ\"ז 08 ,אוקטובר'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court refused the defendant's request to amend the third-party notice, giving as one reason that the amendment rested on the struck opinion, and ordered her to pay costs of 2,500 shekels to each of the two banks within 30 days regardless of the outcome; the decision is dated 8 October 2026.","causal_attribution":"The court's orders. The refusal also rests on independent procedural grounds (no supporting affidavit, lateness, lack of good faith)."}],"effects":[{"label":"defendant's expert opinion struck from the file as resting on AI-hallucinated authorities","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"defendant's amendment refused and costs of 2,500 shekels ordered to each of two banks","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3278/Avaragl_v._Yaakov_Israel.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"he","translation_note":"Read in full in Hebrew by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 from the copy of the decision hosted on the AI Hallucination Cases database (HTTP 200, 10 pages, text extracted with pdftotext and bidirectional-control characters removed); the English renderings in this record are the research agent's own translation, with no human translator involved.","independence_group":"nof-hagalil-nazareth-magistrates-court-civil-file-38820-04-24-decision"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","finance"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool, if any, the expert used; the decision names none and records no account from the expert.","Whether the defendant appeals the decision or pays the costs, and how the suit and the third-party notice are decided.","Whether the expert faces any professional consequence."],"geography":{"basis":"The opinion was filed in, and struck by, the Magistrates' Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel. Where the parties live is not stated and is not used.","court_countries":["IL"],"event_countries":["IL"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's decision, read in full, finds that a filed expert opinion rests on AI-hallucinated authorities and distorted statute text, and on that basis strikes it, refuses the amendment built on it and orders the filing defendant to pay costs. The case is an expert witness's report excluded from evidence before trial.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court's decision finds that the heart of the expert opinion and its annexes rest on clear 'AI hallucinations': a Supreme Court ruling the court could not locate, a cited book it could not find and statutory sections quoted with text the statute does not contain. The court read that output in the filed opinion and, because of it, struck the opinion, refused the amendment that rested on it and ordered the defendant to pay costs (informed_decision_about). The attribution to AI is the court's own finding after checking the sources; no admission, tool or account by the expert is recorded.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Israeli court strikes a defendant's expert report it found rested on AI-hallucinated case law and orders her to pay the banks' costs","summary":"On 8 October 2026 the Magistrates' Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel, struck from the file a banking expert's opinion that a defendant in a civil negligence suit had filed, finding that the heart of the opinion and its annexes rested on clear 'AI hallucinations': a Supreme Court ruling the court could not locate, a book it could not find and statutory sections quoted with text the statute does not contain. The court also refused the defendant's request to amend her third-party notice against two banks, partly because the amendment relied on the struck opinion, and ordered her to pay costs of 2,500 shekels to each bank. No AI tool is named, and the decision records no response from the expert.","incidentDate":"2026-10-08","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-08","aiSystem":"Unidentified generative AI tool; the court found that the expert opinion rests on AI hallucinations but names no tool, and the expert did not respond","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the court's decision, the defendant's expert evidence was struck and her amendment refused because the opinion rested on what the court found were AI-hallucinated authorities and distorted statute text, and she was ordered to pay 2,500 shekels in costs to each of two banks.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the defendant who filed the opinion, whose evidence was struck, whose amendment was refused and who was ordered to pay costs. The expert is not counted because the decision orders nothing against him; the plaintiff and the banks are not harmed by the ruling.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IL","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3278/Avaragl_v._Yaakov_Israel.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Magistrates' Court, Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, civil file 38820-04-24, decision (8 October 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:01:26.843634+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:01:26.843634+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["israel","expert-evidence","hallucinated-citations","court-decision","costs","banking"]},{"id":"2026-alabama-supreme-court-dismisses-family-trust-appeal-over-lawyer-ai-hallucinated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'filed briefs in this appeal that contain numerous invalid, inaccurate, and/or irrelevant citations to legal authorities'; 'They appear to be artificial-intelligence (\"AI\") \"hallucinations,\" i.e., fake authorities created by an AI system'; 'Most of the legal authorities in the briefs are misquoted or nonexistent'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appellants' lawyer filed briefs whose citations the court found numerous, invalid, inaccurate or irrelevant, most of them misquoted or nonexistent, and which the court said appear to be AI hallucinations.","causal_attribution":"The court's own findings."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'first use of an AI research tool that summarized commentary not readily available through standard legal databases'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In a reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, the lawyer attributed two misquotations to an AI research tool that summarised commentary.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's statement as quoted in the opinion."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall admitted that many of the legal authorities in his briefs do not exist and that he improperly used AI to obtain those authorities'; 'Hall also informed the Court that he had self-reported his actions to the Alabama State Bar'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"At the 4 February 2026 show-cause hearing the lawyer admitted that many authorities in his briefs did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them, and said he had self-reported to the Alabama State Bar.","causal_attribution":"The court's record of the hearing."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Because those briefs are grossly deficient under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal'; 'the dismissal of this appeal is imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts before us'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court dismissed the appeal because the briefs were grossly deficient, and said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hall is hereby ordered to pay attorney fees and costs'; 'in the amount of $17,200'; 'Hall is ordered to pay double costs'; 'We also refer Hall to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court ordered the lawyer to pay $17,200 in attorney fees and costs and double costs of the appeal, and referred him to the Alabama State Bar for potential discipline.","causal_attribution":"Established by the opinion."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'SELLERS, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I do not agree that dismissal of the appeal is appropriate as a sanction for the conduct of a lawyer'; 'I would affirm the judgment of the Mobile Circuit'; 'MENDHEIM, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)'; 'I concur in the dismissal of this appeal'; 'His representation on appeal was of no benefit to them'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Justice Sellers, concurring in part and dissenting in part, disagreed that dismissal was an appropriate sanction for a lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits; Justice Mendheim, who concurred in the dismissal, wrote that the lawyer's representation on appeal was of no benefit to the clients.","causal_attribution":"Two separate opinions in the same record; neither is the court's holding."}],"effects":[{"label":"two appellants' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on AI-obtained authorities that were fake or misquoted","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 and double costs, barred from filing alone in the court and referred to the state bar","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-14 from CourtListener's archived copy of this court PDF (storage.courtlistener.com, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext) because the court portal URL returned HTTP 403 to the agent; no translation was needed.","independence_group":"alabama-supreme-court-sc-2025-0106"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the lawyer used; the opinion names none.","Whether the dismissal changed the clients' substantive position; the trial court's summary judgment stands, the main opinion does not decide the merits, and one justice would have affirmed the judgment.","The outcome of the Alabama State Bar referral."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal was decided by the Supreme Court of Alabama on appeal from the Mobile Circuit Court. The appellants' residence is not used.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the Supreme Court of Alabama's opinion establishes that it dismissed two appellants' appeal as a sanction after their lawyer filed briefs built on fabricated authorities that he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI, and that it sanctioned the lawyer and referred him to the state bar. The opinion was read in full.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-14"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found the briefs' authorities appeared to be AI hallucinations, the lawyer admitted at the show-cause hearing that he had improperly used AI to obtain authorities that do not exist, and his reply-brief footnote quoted by the court says an AI research tool misattributed quotations. The AI output reached the court through the briefs, and the court dismissed the clients' appeal because those briefs rested on fabricated authorities (informed_decision_about for the clients); the lawyer received the fabricated output from the tool (communicated_with) and was sanctioned.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Alabama Supreme Court dismisses two siblings' family-trust appeal as a sanction after their lawyer admits using AI that produced fake citations","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2026-04-24","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-04-24","aiSystem":"An AI research tool that, according to the lawyer's reply-brief footnote quoted by the court, summarised legal commentary and misattributed quotations; the lawyer admitted using AI to obtain authorities that do not exist. No product is named in the opinion","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI research tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Supreme Court of Alabama, the siblings' appeal was dismissed as a sanction because their lawyer's briefs relied on authorities that were misquoted or did not exist, which he admitted he had obtained by improperly using AI; the lawyer was ordered to pay $17,200 in fees and costs plus double appeal costs and was referred to the state bar.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One AI user: the appellate lawyer, sanctioned and referred to the bar. Two other people: the two appellants whose appeal was dismissed. The appellee, whose fees were reimbursed, is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/47683AFC-2F85-469D-8562-9DCA094BB680/docketentrydocuments/D95CDD15-7428-4CC9-8389-3CC27AC88089","primarySourceLabel":"Supreme Court of Alabama, opinion in SC-2025-0106 (released 24 April 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T03:11:52.987847+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["united-states","alabama","legal-profession","sanction","hallucinated-citations","appeal-dismissed"]}]}