{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-13T07:00:10.626Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"litigant","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"core","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":5,"coverage":{"cases":5,"countries":2,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":5,"minors":0,"coreRelations":5,"contextualRelations":2,"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-austria-administrative-court-fines-litigant-for-unlabelled-ai-generated-submissions","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Aktenkonvolute und Stellungnahmen mit offensichtlich ausschließlicher Erstellung mit Hilfe von Textprogrammen (LLM) künstlicher Intelligenz und ohne entsprechende Kennzeichnung gemäß Art 50 Verordnung 2024/1689'; 'Die Schriftsätze sind offensichtlich mit KI-Assistenten kreiert und nicht als solche gekennzeichnet.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Der Beschwerdeführer hatte binnen weniger Monate hunderte Seiten an offensichtlich KI-generierten Schriftsätzen und Beilagen abgegeben'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court found that the appellant had filed, within less than four months, statements and attachments running to several hundred pages that were obviously created exclusively with large-language-model text programs and AI assistants and were not labelled under Article 50 of Regulation 2024/1689.","causal_attribution":"The court's own finding in the published decision; the AI use is the court's assessment of the documents."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'eine Mutwillenstrafe von EUR 200,-- (in Worten: zweihundert Euro) verhängt, weil er das Bundesverwaltungsgericht mutwillig in Anspruch nimmt'; 'Entscheidungsdatum'; '01.09.2026'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In a decision of 1 September 2026 the court imposed a EUR 200 penalty for wanton use of the court and declared an ordinary appeal inadmissible.","causal_attribution":"Established by the operative part of the published decision."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Das Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVwG) hat erstmals wegen wiederholter Eingaben mit KI-generierten Inhalten eine Mutwillensstrafe in Höhe von 200€ gegen eine Verfahrenspartei verhängt.'; 'brachten in keiner Form neue Tatsachen oder Beweise vor'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Erstmals verhängte das Gericht eine \"Mutwillensstrafe\" wegen KI-generierter Beschwerden.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The court described the penalty as the first it has imposed because of repeated submissions with AI-generated content, and said the submissions repeated the existing complaints without new facts or evidence.","causal_attribution":"The court's own statement about its practice; derStandard relays it."}],"effects":[{"label":"an appellant was fined EUR 200 after filing hundreds of pages of AI-generated, unlabelled submissions","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bvwg&Dokumentnummer=BVWGT_20260901_W298_2341849_1_00","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"de","translation_note":"Read in full in German by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. The published decision text (RIS) was read; the appellant's submissions were not available.","independence_group":"bvwg-w298-2341849"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.bvwg.gv.at/Aktuelles/Publikationen-des-BVwG/Ausgew-hlte-Entscheidungen-des-Bundesverwaltungsgerichts/Bundesverwaltungsgericht-verh-ngt-erstmals-Strafe-wegen-KI-Eingaben.html","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"de","translation_note":"Read in full in German by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. The court's own news item about the decision; same origin as the decision.","independence_group":"bvwg-w298-2341849"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.derstandard.de/story/3000000343509/mann-flutete-gericht-mit-ki-generierten-beschwerden-oesi-richter-verhaengte-strafe","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"de","translation_note":"Read in full in German by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-13 (HTTP 200); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator reviewed them. derStandard relays the court's news item; only the free lead paragraph was available to the agent.","independence_group":"bvwg-w298-2341849"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the appellant used and the appellant's explanation.","Whether the penalty has been paid or challenged by extraordinary means, and the outcome of the underlying data-protection appeal."],"geography":{"basis":"The penalty was imposed by Austria's Federal Administrative Court in an appeal against the Austrian data protection authority (RIS decision, BVwG news item). The appellant's location is not stated, so no event or affected-person country is recorded from the court's seat.","court_countries":["AT"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the court's published decision documents that it fined an appellant EUR 200 for wanton use of the court after finding hundreds of pages of submissions had been created with AI text programs and filed unlabelled. The appellant is anonymised in the decision and here.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-13"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The published decision records the court's finding that the appellant's statements and attachments were obviously created exclusively with large-language-model text programs and AI assistants and were not labelled as AI-generated, and it bases the EUR 200 penalty on the appellant's use of AI assistants to file long, largely repetitive submissions. The AI assistants generated the text that the appellant filed, and the court penalised the appellant for filing it. The finding is the court's assessment of the documents; no product is named and the appellant's account is not recorded.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Austria: Federal Administrative Court fines a litigant EUR 200 for hundreds of pages of submissions it found were AI-generated and unlabelled","summary":"In a pending appeal against a decision of Austria's data protection authority, the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) found that the appellant had filed hundreds of pages of statements and attachments within less than four months that were obviously created exclusively with large-language-model text programs and not labelled as AI-generated. In a decision of 1 September 2026 the court imposed a EUR 200 penalty for wanton use of the court, holding that the AI-assisted filings repeated the same complaints, brought no new facts or evidence and ignored the EU labelling duty for AI-generated content. The court announced it as the first such penalty for AI submissions. The appellant is anonymised and the appellant's response is not reported.","incidentDate":"2026-09-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-10-09","aiSystem":"Large-language-model text programs and AI assistants that the court found had been used to create the appellant's statements and attachments; no product is named","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the published decision, the court fined the appellant EUR 200 for wanton use of the court after finding that hundreds of pages of submissions had been created with AI text programs and filed unlabelled. The appellant's response is not reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the appellant who used AI assistants to produce the submissions and was fined.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"AT","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bvwg&Dokumentnummer=BVWGT_20260901_W298_2341849_1_00","primarySourceLabel":"RIS, BVwG decision W298 2341849-1, 1 September 2026: penalty for wanton use of the court","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:16.86813+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-13T03:15:16.86813+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["austria","administrative-court","litigant","ai-generated-filings","sanction","ai-act-labelling"]},{"id":"2025-quebec-appeal-court-costs-self-represented-appellant-ai-drafted-filings-nonexistent-judgments","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Elle réclame aussi 10 000 $ en dommages-intérêts'; 'références juridiques inexistantes générées par l’intelligence artificielle dans ses actes de procédure'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The respondent asked the Court of Appeal for $10,000 in damages, alleging that the appellant had included non-existent legal references generated by artificial intelligence in his filings.","causal_attribution":"The decision documents that the respondent made this request; the allegation is hers."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'parce qu’il a utilisé l’intelligence artificielle pour la rédaction'; 'déclaration d’appel et de son exposé, qui comportent deux références à des arrêts inexistants et une référence inexacte quant à un paragraphe cité'; 'L’appelant a contrevenu à cet Avis de la Juge en chef'; 'une forme de négligence plutôt que de la mauvaise foi'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Ruling on the respondent's request, the court described the appellant's notice of appeal and brief as written with artificial intelligence and as containing two references to non-existent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph, and found that he had breached the Chief Justice's notice on AI use through negligence rather than bad faith.","causal_attribution":"Finding stated in the Court of Appeal decision of 1 October 2026; the decision does not name the tool."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'une telle connaissance de la part de l’appelant n’a pas été démontrée'; 'il y a lieu de le condamner aux frais de justice en vertu de l’article 340 C.p.c.'; 'en matière familiale, de chacune'; 'REJETTE la demande visant à sanctionner un manquement au déroulement'; 'LE TOUT, avec les frais de justice en faveur de l’intimée.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Because knowledge of the invented references was not shown, the court rejected the separate monetary sanction but ordered court costs against the appellant under article 340 C.p.c. to sanction the conduct.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the decision; the costs are the court's response to the AI-drafted filings."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'ACCUEILLE en partie l’appel'; 'peine de 100 heures de travail d’utilité sociale'; 'une mesure coercitive d’emprisonnement de 30 jours'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On the merits the court partly allowed the appeal for reasons unrelated to AI and reduced the contempt penalty to 100 hours of community work and 30 days of coercive imprisonment.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the decision; the contempt arose from non-compliance with family-court orders, not from AI use."}],"effects":[{"label":"a self-represented appellant was ordered to pay court costs because his AI-drafted appeal filings cited non-existent judgments","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3266/Droit-de-la-famille-261553-2026-QCCA-1300.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Read in full in French by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12 from the copy of the decision hosted by the AI Hallucination Cases database (PDF, HTTP 200, text extracted with pdftotext); the English assertions are the agent's translation and no human translator or reviewer was involved. The locators quote the French original.","independence_group":"qcca-2026-qcca-1300-decision"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the appellant used and what it produced beyond the two non-existent judgments and the inaccurate paragraph reference.","The amount of the court costs ordered against the appellant.","Whether the appellant has complied with the underlying orders or served the coercive imprisonment."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal was heard and decided by the Quebec Court of Appeal from a Quebec Superior Court judgment (decision caption and paragraph 1), and the filings were made in that court. The decision states no residence for the appellant, so affected_person_countries is left empty.","court_countries":["CA"],"event_countries":["CA"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the court's own decision: the Quebec Court of Appeal described a self-represented appellant's appeal filings as written with AI and as citing non-existent judgments, held that he had breached its AI notice and ordered costs against him. The facts are documented by the decision; the appellant is a private party in a family matter and is not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Ruling on the respondent's request (paragraph 28), the Quebec Court of Appeal decision describes the appellant's notice of appeal and brief as written with artificial intelligence and as containing two references to non-existent judgments and an inaccurate paragraph reference. The court treated that AI drafting and those references as established: it held that he had breached its AI notice (paragraph 30), contrasted his lack of shown knowledge of the hallucinations with an earlier case (paragraphs 31-32) and ordered costs against him for that reason. The AI output reached him as drafted text he filed (communicated_with) and informed the court's costs decision about him (informed_decision_about). The decision does not identify the tool or quote its output.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Quebec Court of Appeal orders costs against a self-represented appellant whose AI-drafted filings cited two non-existent judgments (1 Oct 2026)","summary":"On 1 October 2026 the Quebec Court of Appeal ordered court costs against a self-represented appellant in a family-law contempt appeal as a sanction for appeal filings that, in the court's description, he had written with artificial intelligence and that contained two references to non-existent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph. The court held that AI may be used to draft appeal filings only if the litigant verifies the authorities, found that he had breached the Chief Justice's notice on AI use, and described his conduct as negligence rather than bad faith. It rejected the respondent's request for a separate $10,000 sanction and, for reasons unrelated to AI, reduced the contempt penalty imposed at first instance. The decision does not name the AI tool.","incidentDate":"2025-12-15","incidentEndDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-01","aiSystem":"Artificial intelligence, not identified in the decision, which the self-represented appellant used to draft his notice of appeal and brief","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The Quebec Court of Appeal ordered court costs against the self-represented appellant as a sanction for filings he drafted with AI that cited non-existent judgments, holding that he breached the court's AI notice through negligence (2026 QCCA 1300, 1 October 2026). The amount of the costs is not stated.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used AI to draft the filings and against whom costs were ordered. The respondent and other family members are not counted as harmed by the AI-related sanction.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CA","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3266/Droit-de-la-famille-261553-2026-QCCA-1300.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Quebec Court of Appeal, Droit de la famille — 261553, 2026 QCCA 1300, 1 October 2026 (copy hosted by the AI Hallucination Cases database)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:20.356128+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:17:20.356128+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated_citations","courts","self_represented_litigant","costs_order","family_law","canada","quebec"]},{"id":"2026-nebraska-supreme-court-strikes-self-represented-appellant-brief-over-ai-fabricated-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'his brief contains numerous citations'; 'to fictitious cases and misstatements of law, which are the'; 'result of his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence'; 'In light of these deficiencies, we strike'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the self-represented appellant's brief contained numerous citations to fictitious cases and misstatements of law resulting from his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence, and struck the brief.","causal_attribution":"Finding stated in the court's published opinion of 2 October 2026."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'litigants are held to the same standard as practicing attorneys'; 'relies upon nonexistent legal authority is'; 'an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions'; 'we will stop short of dismissing'; 'dismissal of the appeal in lieu of plain error review may follow'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court held that self-represented litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys and that submitting a brief relying on nonexistent legal authority is an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions, but stopped short of dismissing the appeal and reviewed for plain error, warning that dismissal may follow in future cases.","causal_attribution":"Holding stated in the court's published opinion."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'sanctioned him to serve a term of 90 days’ incarceration'; 'Finding no plain error, we affirm'; 'time to a period of 5 weeks and once again ordered that he pay'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Reviewing for plain error only, the court found none and affirmed the district court's contempt finding and its sanction of 90 days' incarceration with purge conditions, a temporary reduction of parenting time and an attorney-fee award.","causal_attribution":"Disposition stated in the court's published opinion; the contempt arose from decree violations unrelated to AI."}],"effects":[{"label":"a self-represented appellant's brief was struck for AI-fabricated citations and his appeal was reviewed only for plain error","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewOpinion?docId=N00013498PUB","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library PDF (text extracted with pdftotext); no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the opinion. HTTP 200.","independence_group":"nebraska-supreme-court-opinion-2026-10-02"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","relationships"],"unknowns":["Which generative AI tool the appellant used and what it produced; the opinion records only his admission and the presence of fictitious citations.","Whether the appeal would have fared differently under full review; the court reviewed for plain error and found none.","Whether the appellant has served the incarceration sanction or purged it."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal is from the District Court for Sarpy County, Nebraska, and the opinion is of the Nebraska Supreme Court (opinion caption and background). The appellant litigated the divorce in Nebraska; the opinion gives no other residence.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (communicated_with) on the court's own published opinion. The appellant admitted using generative AI to prepare his brief. The Nebraska Supreme Court struck the brief because its fabricated citations resulted from that use, reviewed only for plain error and affirmed the contempt order against him (informed_decision_about). The facts are documented by the opinion; the appellant is a private party in a family case and is not named in the public text.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Nebraska Supreme Court's published opinion states that the appellant's brief contained numerous citations to fictitious cases and misstatements of law 'which are the result of his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence (AI)'. The appellant used the tool himself to prepare the brief, and its output gave him the fictitious authorities he filed (communicated_with). The court then acted on that output: it read the brief, found its authorities fictitious, struck it on that ground and limited its review to plain error (informed_decision_about). The opinion does not identify the tool or quote its output.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Nebraska Supreme Court strikes a self-represented appellant's brief over fabricated citations from admitted AI use; plain-error review only (2 Oct 2026)","summary":"On 2 October 2026 the Nebraska Supreme Court struck the appellate brief of a self-represented party appealing a contempt order in his divorce case because the brief contained numerous citations to fictitious cases and misstatements of law, which the court said were the result of his admitted use of generative artificial intelligence. The court held that self-represented litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys and that submitting a brief relying on nonexistent authority is an abuse of the judicial process worthy of sanctions. Citing the novelty of the issue for self-represented parties, it stopped short of dismissing the appeal and reviewed only for plain error, finding none and affirming the district court's contempt finding, its sanction of 90 days' incarceration with purge conditions, a temporary reduction of his parenting time and an attorney-fee award. The court warned that in future cases dismissal of the appeal may follow. The opinion does not name the AI tool.","incidentDate":"2026-10-02","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-02","aiSystem":"Generative artificial intelligence, not identified in the opinion, which the appellant admitted using to prepare an appellate brief that cited fictitious cases","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The appellant's brief was struck as a sanction for fabricated citations the court attributed to his admitted use of generative AI, so his appeal was reviewed only for plain error rather than on its assigned errors; the court affirmed the contempt order and 90-day incarceration sanction with purge conditions (Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, 2 October 2026). The opinion does not say whether the appeal would have succeeded under full review.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the self-represented appellant who used generative AI to prepare the brief and whose brief was struck. The opposing party and the children are not counted as harmed by the AI-related sanction.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewOpinion?docId=N00013498PUB","primarySourceLabel":"Nebraska Supreme Court opinion, 322 Neb. 451, No. S-25-546, filed 2 October 2026 (court PDF, docId N00013498PUB)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:29:04.754849+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:43:37.291553+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["hallucinated_citations","courts","self_represented_litigant","sanctions","united_states","nebraska"]},{"id":"2025-north-carolina-federal-prosecutor-ai-drafted-brief-fabricated-quotations-reprimand","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"This filing misquoted a Fourth Circuit case, falsely attributed quotes to other cases and incorrectly described the court’s decision in several cases that he relied upon to support his argument, Numbers said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Numbers' list of problematic conduct includes fabricated quotes, misrepresentations of previous cases","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"filed a response with the court including “fabricated quotations and misstatements of case holdings”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"A response brief filed in December 2025 by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rudy Renfer for the Department of Defense in Fivehouse v. U.S. Department of Defense misquoted a Fourth Circuit case, attributed quotes to cases that did not contain them and misdescribed the holdings of several cases, according to Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II's orders as reported by the News & Observer and Courthouse News.","causal_attribution":"The court attributed the false quotations to the brief Renfer signed; the fabricated authority is the AI-related artifact in this case."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"flagged fabricated quotes and inaccurate descriptions of court cases in a brief Renfer filed earlier that month.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"In a January court filing, Renfer attributed the errors to an \"inadvertent filing of an unfinalized draft.\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Fivehouse pointed out the errors in his reply.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The self-represented plaintiff, a retired Air Force colonel, identified the fabricated quotes and inaccurate case descriptions in his reply at the end of December 2025, and Renfer then attributed the errors to the inadvertent filing of an unfinalized draft.","causal_attribution":"none asserted"},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"the court orders Assistant United States Attorney Rudy E. Renfer to appear and show cause why he should not be sanctioned. The show cause hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 10, 2026","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"must appear at a show-cause hearing this week","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"On 2 March 2026 the court ordered Renfer to appear on 10 March 2026 and show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11(b)(2) and the court's inherent authority, and asked leadership of the U.S. Attorney's Office to attend.","causal_attribution":"none asserted"},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Renfer then admitted to using AI to draft the brief","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"he thought he had edited and fact-checked the brief that AI helped draft. In reality, he sent an unfinished draft to his assistant, directing her to file it","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"He told the court that he accidentally saved a new file over the original draft of the brief, “panicked,” and used artificial intelligence to catch up.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"At the 10 March 2026 hearing Renfer said under oath that, after accidentally saving over his draft of the brief, he panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft it, believed he had edited and fact-checked the AI-assisted draft, and in fact sent an unfinished draft to be filed.","causal_attribution":"Renfer connected the fabricated authority to his use of AI; the court later wrote that an attorney who outsources research and writing to generative AI assumes the risk of fictitious authority."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Renfer lost his job after resigning from the position he had held for 17 years, he said.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Renfer also told Numbers, who presided over that hearing, that he had submitted his resignation.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"Renfer was reportedly terminated the next day.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"has asked the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Renfer left the U.S. Attorney's Office, where he had worked for 17 years: he told the court on 10 March 2026 that he had submitted his resignation, and Courthouse News reported that he was terminated the next day; the U.S. Attorney referred him to the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility.","causal_attribution":"The job loss followed the hearing on the AI-drafted brief; the sources do not state the employer's formal grounds."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"On Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Numbers II signed an order reprimanding Rudy Renfer","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Numbers limited the punishment to a public reprimand.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"Numbers said Renfer “intentionally submitted a brief containing false materials to the court.”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"His loss of employment imposes a financial burden well beyond the types of fines courts typically","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 28 April 2026 Magistrate Judge Numbers signed an order publicly reprimanding Renfer, writing that he intentionally submitted a brief containing false materials, that his professional reputation was in tatters, and that his loss of employment was a financial burden beyond the fines courts typically impose, so no fine was imposed.","causal_attribution":"The court tied the reprimand to the submission of fabricated authority produced with generative AI."}],"effects":[{"label":"a federal prosecutor lost his 17-year position and received a public judicial reprimand after filing an AI-drafted brief with fabricated quotations","claim_id":"c6","direction":"negative"},{"label":"a self-represented litigant had to identify fabricated quotations and misdescribed cases in the government's brief against him","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/judge-weighs-next-steps-us-121054156.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. The News & Observer report of 11 March 2026 on the 10 March show-cause hearing, read in its Yahoo News syndication; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"news-and-observer"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/federal-judge-punishes-ex-us-173015519.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. The News & Observer report of 28 April 2026 on the reprimand order, read in its Yahoo News syndication; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"news-and-observer"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rebukes-ex-doj-attorney-for-ai-generated-brief/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. Courthouse News Service report of 28 April 2026; the publisher host returned HTTP 403 to the fetcher, so the body was read from an Internet Archive capture of the same URL.","independence_group":"courthouse-news"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/doj-leaders-must-explain-why-attorney-used-fabricated-quotes-in-court-filing","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. ABA Journal, 9 March 2026, relaying Bloomberg Law reporting of the 2 March 2026 show-cause order; it does not mention AI; HTTP 200.","independence_group":"bloomberg-law"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71231282/fivehouse-v-us-department-of-defense/?page=2","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09 from the saved body; no translation was involved and no human reviewer read the text. CourtListener RECAP docket for Fivehouse v. U.S. Department of Defense, No. 2:25-cv-00041 (E.D.N.C.), page 2, entries of February to March 2026; HTTP 200. The 28 April 2026 order itself was not available as a free document.","independence_group":"court-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool Renfer used, and whether the whole brief or only parts of it were generated; the inspected accounts say only that he used artificial intelligence to draft the brief after losing his own draft.","Whether Renfer resigned or was terminated: he told the court he had resigned, and Courthouse News reported that he was terminated the next day.","The outcome of the Office of Professional Responsibility referral, and whether the court found similar fabricated quotations in other filings he signed (the News & Observer mentions errors in some of his other briefs without detail).","Any consequence for the self-represented plaintiff beyond the work of identifying the errors; the inspected sources describe none."],"geography":{"basis":"The brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina and the hearing took place at the federal courthouse in Raleigh (docket entry of 2 March 2026; News & Observer). Renfer worked in that district's U.S. Attorney's Office. No other country is involved.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case on two independent reporting chains that both quote the court's orders and both report the attorney's statements at the 10 March 2026 hearing: a federal prosecutor said under oath that he used artificial intelligence to draft a brief that the court found contained fabricated quotations and misdescribed holdings, and the court responded with a show-cause order (documented on the docket), after which he lost his position and received a public reprimand on 28 April 2026. The affected person is a named public actor in a public court record. The AI tool is not identified and the resignation-or-termination question is recorded as unknown.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Renfer stated under oath at the 10 March 2026 show-cause hearing that he used artificial intelligence to draft the response brief after overwriting his own draft, and that he had not verified the cases it cited (News & Observer, 11 March; Courthouse News, 28 April). The court's 28 April order, as quoted by Courthouse News, treated the fabricated quotations and misdescribed holdings in that brief as the output of generative AI that Renfer failed to check ('An attorney who outsources core research and writing obligations to generative AI assumes the risk that its output will contain fictitious authority'); the News & Observer quotes the same order's statement that 'the submission of fabricated authority will not be tolerated in this Court'. The fabricated authority in the filed brief led to the show-cause order, the hearing, his departure from the office and the public reprimand. The tool is not identified in any inspected source.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Former federal prosecutor in North Carolina publicly reprimanded after admitting that a brief with fabricated quotations was drafted with AI; he lost his post","summary":"In December 2025 an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina filed a response brief for the Department of Defense in a self-represented veteran's lawsuit over health-insurance coverage. The plaintiff identified fabricated quotations and misdescribed case holdings in it. The attorney first attributed the errors to an unfinalized draft filed by mistake. On 2 March 2026 Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. At the 10 March hearing the attorney, Rudy Renfer, said under oath that he had accidentally overwritten his draft, panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft the brief, and had not verified the cases it cited; he said he had resigned after 17 years in the office, and Courthouse News reported he was terminated the next day. On 28 April 2026 the court issued a public reprimand instead of a fine, writing that his reputation was in tatters and that his job loss already exceeded the usual fines.","incidentDate":"2025-12-23","incidentEndDate":"2026-04-28","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-03-09","aiSystem":"Generative artificial intelligence tool, not identified in the inspected accounts, that the attorney said he used to draft a response brief in federal court","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI drafting tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The attorney lost his position in the U.S. Attorney's Office after 17 years, was referred to the Office of Professional Responsibility and received a public judicial reprimand stating that his professional reputation was in tatters, all following the show-cause proceedings over the AI-drafted brief with fabricated quotations (News & Observer; Courthouse News). The self-represented plaintiff had to identify the fabricated authority in the government's filing; no further consequence for him is reported.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One AI user harmed: the attorney who said he used AI to draft the brief and who lost his job and was reprimanded. The plaintiff's burden of identifying the errors is described, but no consequence to him is reported, so he is not counted as harmed.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/judge-weighs-next-steps-us-121054156.html","primarySourceLabel":"The News & Observer (via Yahoo News), 11 March 2026: report of the show-cause hearing at which the attorney admitted using AI","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:23:08.421295+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:23:08.421295+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["legal","fabricated_citations","hallucination","court_sanction","professional_harm","government","united_states","north_carolina"]},{"id":"2025-aberdeen-mississippi-fee-suit-ai-hallucinated-citations-four-attorneys-sanctioned","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 2: 'the Court was unable to locate certain legal authorities cited within them. Specifically, the Court determined that the following filings contained hallucinatory citations'; p. 3: 'the attorneys admitted that the hallucinatory citations cited by them, and identified by the Court, resulted from unverified AI use.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'In *Withers v. City of Aberdeen*, attorneys for both sides cited no fewer than six entirely fabricated precedents.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"In late 2025, legal memoranda filed for both sides in a fee suit against the City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss.) cited cases that do not exist; the court identified one such citation in the City's summary-judgment memorandum, three in its fee-challenge memorandum and two in the plaintiff's opposition, and the attorneys admitted the citations resulted from unverified AI use.","causal_attribution":"Established by the court's sanctions order on the attorneys' own admissions."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 3: 'Williams admitted to using an AI tool to conduct legal research, and Wilson admitted to using generative AI to draft her respective filing. Neither of them verified the legal authority output by AI before filing their briefs.'; p. 9: 'She explained that she used “First Drafts,” an AI- powered program for drafting legal documents.'; p. 14: 'it had acquired software that was built for in-house legal research.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The plaintiff's out-of-state counsel, Kathleen M. Wilson, drafted the opposition using 'First Drafts', an AI-powered drafting program, and the City's out-of-state counsel, Kathryn Y. Williams, used an in-house AI legal research tool; neither verified the AI output before filing.","causal_attribution":"Admissions recorded and findings made in the sanctions order."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"p. 21: 'Kathleen M. Wilson’s pro hac vice admission in this case is REVOKED.'; 'Wilson is hereby ORDERED to pay a $2,500 fine to the registry of this Court'; 'Williams is hereby ORDERED to pay a $3,500 fine to the registry of this Court'; 'Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway is DISQUALIFIED from further participation in this case.'; p. 22: 'Mark McClinton is DISQUALIFIED from further participation in this case.'; 'send a copy of this Sanctions Order to the Mississippi Bar, the Louisiana Bar, and the Texas Bar.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"p. 20: 'Wilson and Williams are hereby BARRED from entering an appearance in any case before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi for the period of two (2) years'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 8 June 2026 the court revoked Wilson's and Williams' pro hac vice admissions, barred both from appearing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years, fined Wilson $2,500 and Williams $3,500, ordered Wilson to complete an AI ethics CLE, disqualified the two local counsel (Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway and Mark C. McClinton, who signed without checking the citations) with $1,000 fines each, and sent the order to the Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas bars.","causal_attribution":"The sanctions are the court's response to the AI-generated false citations and the failure to verify them."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Given the pending sanctions issue, this case is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court. The final pretrial conference scheduled on February 19, 2026 and trial scheduled on March 23, 2026 are hereby cancelled'; 'The following pending motions are hereby TERMINATED'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"p. 20: 'The Court is cognizant that upon disqualifying the resident attorneys the litigants are effectively left without representation in this case, and that this can cause hardship for them.'; p. 22: 'the Court will dismiss this case without further notice.'; p. 12: 'The Court was unable to resolve that dispositive motion given the tainted filings, and it effectively inhibited the case from proceeding further.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Because of the sanctions issue the court stayed the case, cancelled the pretrial conference and the 23 March 2026 trial, and terminated the pending summary-judgment and fee motions; after disqualifying all four attorneys it gave both litigants 60 days to find new counsel, acknowledging this could cause them hardship, and warned the plaintiff that the case would be dismissed if no counsel appeared or he did not elect to proceed pro se by 7 August 2026.","causal_attribution":"The stay and loss of counsel follow directly from the sanctions proceeding over the AI-generated citations, per the court's orders."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'directing attorney Kathleen M. Wilson to show cause as to why this Court should not hold her in contempt for her failure to pay the fine'; 'Wilson shall have until September 16, 2026 to (1) pay the monetary fine'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"On 17 August 2026, after a show-cause order over Wilson's failure to pay the fine, the court extended her deadline to pay it and to complete the CLE to 16 September 2026.","causal_attribution":"Follow-on enforcement of the sanctions order."}],"effects":[{"label":"two attorneys who used AI tools without verifying the output lost their pro hac vice admissions, were barred from the district for two years and fined","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"two local counsel were disqualified and fined for signing the AI-drafted filings without checking the citations","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the case was stayed, the trial cancelled and both litigants left without counsel, with the plaintiff's case facing dismissal if no new counsel appeared","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.123.0_1.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Sanctions Order, ECF 123, filed 8 June 2026 (Senior Judge Sharion Aycock), 23 pages; full text read via pdftotext on 2026-09-29 (RECAP copy on CourtListener).","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.120.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order staying the case, ECF 120, filed 4 February 2026; one page, read in full on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.133.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Order of 17 August 2026, ECF 133, extending one attorney's deadline to pay the fine and complete the CLE; one page, read in full on 2026-09-29.","independence_group":"msnd-court-record"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/technology-science/artc-courtroom-hallucinations-lawyers-cite-precedents-dreamt-up-by-ai-as-clients-sabotage-their-own-cases","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"i24NEWS aggregate piece (Sep 2026) read on 2026-09-29 from the Internet Archive capture of 10 Sep 2026 (the live page is a JavaScript shell). It mentions the case in two sentences; its count of 'no fewer than six' fabricated precedents matches the order's list and is not an independent check.","independence_group":"i24news"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["Which underlying model the 'First Drafts' program and Williams' research tool used; the order names neither vendor's model.","Whether the Mississippi, Louisiana or Texas bars opened disciplinary proceedings, and whether Wilson paid by 16 September 2026.","Whether the litigants retained new counsel by 7 August 2026 and what became of the case.","The dates of the other tainted filings Wilson drafted in this case (ECF 123 p.11); they may predate 5 November 2025."],"geography":{"basis":"Federal case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi (Aberdeen Division); the order describes the attorneys as licensed in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published from the court's own sanctions order and related docket orders, which record the attorneys' admissions of unverified AI use and the resulting sanctions, stay and loss of counsel. Attorneys are named as they are in the public order; the plaintiff, a private litigant, is not named.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The sanctions order records the two drafting attorneys' admissions that their filings were produced with AI tools (Wilson: 'First Drafts', a generative drafting program; Williams: an unnamed in-house AI legal research product) and finds that their unverified reliance on the output produced the fabricated citations.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Fee suit against the City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss.): four attorneys on both sides sanctioned after AI tools produced fabricated case citations; trial cancelled and both litigants left without counsel","summary":"In a fee dispute between a Louisiana attorney and the City of Aberdeen, Mississippi, briefs filed for both sides in late 2025 cited six cases that do not exist. The attorneys admitted the citations came from unverified AI use: the plaintiff's out-of-state counsel, Kathleen M. Wilson, drafted her filing with an AI drafting program called 'First Drafts', and the City's out-of-state counsel, Kathryn Y. Williams, used an in-house AI legal research tool. Senior Judge Sharion Aycock stayed the case and cancelled the March 2026 trial, then on 8 June 2026 revoked both attorneys' pro hac vice admissions, barred them from the district for two years and fined them $2,500 and $3,500, and disqualified and fined the two local counsel who had signed the filings. Both litigants were left without counsel and given 60 days to find new representation.","incidentDate":"2025-11-05","incidentEndDate":"2026-06-08","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-06-08","aiSystem":"'First Drafts', an AI-powered legal drafting program (plaintiff's counsel), and an unnamed in-house AI legal research software product (City's counsel); underlying models not stated","aiProduct":"First Drafts and unidentified legal research tool","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Per the court's orders, two attorneys who filed AI-generated fabricated citations lost their pro hac vice admissions, were barred from the district for two years and fined $2,500 and $3,500; two local counsel who signed the filings were disqualified and fined $1,000 each; the case was stayed with its trial cancelled, and the plaintiff was left without counsel under threat of dismissal.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":2,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Sanctions Order (ECF 123). Participant users: Wilson and Williams, the two attorneys who used the AI tools and were sanctioned (2). Others harmed through their use: the two local counsel disqualified and fined (Ridgeway, McClinton) and the plaintiff, an individual whose case was stayed, whose trial was cancelled and who was left without counsel (3). The City of Aberdeen is an organisation and is not counted; no other person's harm is stated.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-MS","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181/gov.uscourts.msnd.50181.123.0_1.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Withers v. City of Aberdeen, No. 1:24-cv-218-SA-RP (N.D. Miss.), Sanctions Order, ECF 123, 8 June 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:31.680119+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:16:55.045067+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","justice","legal-profession","sanction","fabricated-citations","pro-hac-vice","own-use","mississippi"]}]}