証拠道場 · the proof dojo
Verified proof · Process automation & AI-led ops
The internet is full of claims.We publish the proof.
Real outcomes from automation and AI-ops projects, checked with the client, never lifted from a pitch deck. The source buyers read before they hire, and AI answer engines cite when asked who actually delivers.
tin://exhibit-001 · process automation & ai-led ops verified
Zillow shut down its algorithmic home-buying business after a $304M write-down and 25% layoffs
sources archived · method on record open the file →
VERIFIED CASE FILE: Zillow shut down its algorithmic home-buying business after a $304M write-down and 25% layoffs///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal appeals court fines a lawyer $2,500 for an AI-drafted brief, even though she used purpose-built legal-AI tools///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Ontario Law Society Tribunal orders a lawyer to pay $31,150 in costs after Grok-generated fake citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: OTG New York v. Ottogi America: a New Jersey federal court fines a lawyer $3,000 for a reply brief built on AI-hallucinated citations (2025)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Torres Campos v. Munoz: a published California appellate opinion sanctions a lawyer $5,000 for citing AI-hallucinated cases in a dog-custody fight (2026)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Air Canada held liable for its website chatbot's bad advice: tribunal orders C$812.02 (Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal court prices an unchecked AI legal workflow: $3,000 sanctions each for the attorneys behind an AI-drafted brief with nearly thirty defective citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: €30.5 million for an illegal AI face database: the Dutch DPA's final, unappealable GDPR fine on Clearview AI///VERIFIED CASE FILE: iTutorGroup pays $365,000 after the EEOC alleges its application software auto-rejected 200+ older applicants, the settlement the agency's Chair tied to its AI enforcement push///VERIFIED CASE FILE: FTC final order: the 'AI-powered' web-accessibility widget that promised any-website WCAG compliance pays $1,000,000///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Federal court enters $25M judgment and permanent ban against Ascend Ecom after FTC alleges its 'AI-powered' passive-income storefronts earned clients virtually nothing///VERIFIED CASE FILE: FTC orders DoNotPay's 'world's first robot lawyer' to pay $193,000 and notify subscribers over unsubstantiated AI claims///VERIFIED CASE FILE: FTC v. Evolv: the AI scanner marketed as detecting all weapons missed a knife used in a school stabbing, and a federal court entered a permanent injunction///VERIFIED CASE FILE: FTC × IntelliVision: a 'zero bias, millions of faces' AI claim, measured against NIST///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Federal court bans Rite Aid from AI facial-recognition surveillance for five years after FTC alleges thousands of false-positive matches///VERIFIED CASE FILE: FTC final order: the '98% accurate' AI Content Detector was an unmodified student model, and its own published data showed 53.2% on real-world text///VERIFIED CASE FILE: The €15 million ChatGPT fine that didn't survive: Italy's Garante fined OpenAI, the Court of Rome annulled it///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A $2.275M class settlement takes the algorithm's score away: Louis v. SafeRent and the five-year rollback of tenant-screening scores for voucher applicants///VERIFIED CASE FILE: SEC AI washing enforcement: Delphia and Global Predictions pay $400,000 for AI claims they couldn't back///VERIFIED CASE FILE: SEC AI-washing order: Presto's drive-thru 'voice AI' needed a human on every order///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal court fined a public defender $1,500 for a fake citation, then declined to say AI wrote it///VERIFIED CASE FILE: John Deere See & Spray: independent university trials cut post-emergence herbicide 43% to 62%///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Akerlund v. Atlas Air: a federal appeals court refers a former Florida lawmaker to its lawyer-conduct committee over AI-hallucinated citations, filed twice///VERIFIED CASE FILE: The UK's DWP fraud model: a machine-learning system that saved an estimated 4.4 million pounds on Universal Credit advances///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Coinbase: AI spend cut nearly in half, and the biggest lever was caching, not cheaper models///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Notion and Decagon: an AI support agent, 34% faster resolution and 2x deflection///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Delivery Hero and n8n: account-lockout recovery automated in a single workflow///VERIFIED CASE FILE: JPMorgan's COIN: the famous 360,000-hours figure, and why it was never independently measured///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Klarna's AI customer-service assistant: the 2024 numbers and the 2025 walk-back///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Mango's first fully AI-generated campaign: Sunset Dream, 95 markets, and no public performance number///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Moderna's company-wide ChatGPT Enterprise rollout: 750 custom GPTs, from a vendor case study///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Octopus Energy's 'Magic Ink': AI that drafts support emails, with no job cuts///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Omega Healthcare and UiPath: document automation across billing, coding, and payer correspondence///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Otto's autonomous stock ordering: a deep-learning system that buys inventory on its own///VERIFIED CASE FILE: PZU and Tractable: from a detailed review of 20% of body-shop claims to nearly all, in real time///VERIFIED CASE FILE: TSXG Galicia: Spain's High Court of Justice of Galicia fines a lawyer €1,800 for an appeal built on 24 AI-fabricated citations, and sizes the fine to a legal-AI subscription///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Zalando's 2018 'algorithms replace 250 marketing jobs': the headline, and the hiring plan it left out///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Landberg v. City of New York: an AI-fabricated appellate brief drew $10,500 in sanctions///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Italy's Supreme Court fines an appellant €5,000 for AI-hallucinated case citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Barber v. Morawa: Michigan's first published appellate opinion sanctioning a lawyer for AI-fabricated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Withers v. City of Aberdeen: a federal court sanctions attorneys on both sides $8,000 for AI-hallucinated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Alabama Supreme Court dismisses appeal, fines lawyer $17,200 for AI-'hallucinated' citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: United States v. Farris: a federal appeals court denies a lawyer his pay and removes him from the case over AI-fabricated quotations from Westlaw's CoCounsel///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Prososki v. Regan: Nebraska Supreme Court strikes an appellate brief and refers counsel for discipline over fictitious, allegedly AI-generated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Whiting v. City of Athens: a federal appeals court fines two lawyers $15,000 each for briefs with 'over two dozen fake citations'///PENDING CASE FILE: In re Nwaubani: the Fourth Circuit publicly admonishes a lawyer over nonexistent citations 'potentially derived from generative AI'///VERIFIED CASE FILE: New York's first appellate AI-sanction: a lawyer who conceded using AI, 23 fabricated cases, and $10,000 in penalties (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v LeTennier)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Couvrette v. Wisnovsky (D. Or.): a $15,500 sanction for AI-fabricated citations, at $500 per fake case and $1,000 per fabricated quotation///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Dastou v. Holmes: a Massachusetts judge sanctions a lawyer for ChatGPT-fabricated jury instructions, no fine, but an MCLE course and no billing the client///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal judge struck a lawyer's brief over 17 AI-fabricated quotations and folded the conduct into a grievance referral///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Oregon Court of Appeals fines a lawyer $10,000 for AI-fabricated authority: the state's largest such penalty and the Ringo formula's biggest bill yet///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Fivehouse v. U.S. Dept. of Defense (E.D.N.C.): a federal prosecutor is publicly reprimanded for a brief with AI-fabricated quotations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal court fined a lawyer $6,000 for a brief built on an AI-hallucinated case///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Gauthier v. Goodyear: a Texas lawyer is sanctioned $2,000 for filing AI-hallucinated case citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: In re Marla C. Martin (Bankr. N.D. Ill.): $5,500 Rule 9011 Sanction for a ChatGPT-Fabricated Brief///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal judge fined a lawyer $5,000 for filing AI-fabricated case citations against T.D. Jakes///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Johnson v. Dunn: three lawyers are disqualified and referred to the bar for filing five ChatGPT-hallucinated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: An Ohio federal judge fines two lawyers $7,500 for AI-fabricated citations, 'the most egregious' Rule 11 violation in his 46 years on the bench///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Kohls v. Ellison: a court throws out a Stanford misinformation expert's declaration after GPT-4o invented its citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Kruse v. Karlen: Missouri appeals court fines a pro se litigant $10,000 after 22 of 24 cited cases turn out to be AI fabrications (Mo. App. E.D., Feb. 2024)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Nine of 27 citations were wrong and two cases did not exist: a special master ordered Ellis George and K&L Gates to pay $31,100///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A Kansas federal judge fined five attorneys $12,000 for AI-fabricated citations, and named the failure, not the AI///VERIFIED CASE FILE: The Ninth Circuit fines two lawyers $2,500 each and suspends them for six months over AI-hallucinated briefs, but the sanction is for candor, not for using AI///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal court fined a lawyer $6,000 for three briefs full of AI-fabricated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Oregon Court of Appeals fines a lawyer $2,000 for AI-fabricated authority, and sets a per-item price: $500 a fake citation, $1,000 a fake quote///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Wadsworth v. Walmart: AI hallucinated eight of nine cases in a Morgan and Morgan brief, and a federal judge fined the lawyers $5,000 and revoked one pro hac vice///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Czech Constitutional Court fines a lawyer 25,000 CZK for a complaint built on AI-hallucinated case law///VERIFIED CASE FILE: United States v. McGee: a federal judge fines a court-appointed defense lawyer $5,000 for AI-hallucinated citations produced by a Microsoft Word plug-in called Ghostwriter Legal (2025)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Noland v. Land of the Free: California's first published opinion on AI-fabricated citations ($10,000 sanction)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Ayinde v Haringey / Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank: the UK High Court's landmark ruling on AI-fabricated case-law///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Garner v. Kadince: Utah Court of Appeals Sanctions Counsel for ChatGPT-Hallucinated Citations (2025 UT App 80)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Murray (Wamba Wemba) v Victoria: a Federal Court of Australia indemnity-costs order after AI-fabricated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence: Delaware court rejects fair use for AI training data, finds 2,243 Westlaw headnotes infringed///ON RECORD: 72 VERIFIED · 1 PENDING///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Zillow shut down its algorithmic home-buying business after a $304M write-down and 25% layoffs///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal appeals court fines a lawyer $2,500 for an AI-drafted brief, even though she used purpose-built legal-AI tools///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Ontario Law Society Tribunal orders a lawyer to pay $31,150 in costs after Grok-generated fake citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: OTG New York v. Ottogi America: a New Jersey federal court fines a lawyer $3,000 for a reply brief built on AI-hallucinated citations (2025)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Torres Campos v. Munoz: a published California appellate opinion sanctions a lawyer $5,000 for citing AI-hallucinated cases in a dog-custody fight (2026)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Air Canada held liable for its website chatbot's bad advice: tribunal orders C$812.02 (Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal court prices an unchecked AI legal workflow: $3,000 sanctions each for the attorneys behind an AI-drafted brief with nearly thirty defective citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: €30.5 million for an illegal AI face database: the Dutch DPA's final, unappealable GDPR fine on Clearview AI///VERIFIED CASE FILE: iTutorGroup pays $365,000 after the EEOC alleges its application software auto-rejected 200+ older applicants, the settlement the agency's Chair tied to its AI enforcement push///VERIFIED CASE FILE: FTC final order: the 'AI-powered' web-accessibility widget that promised any-website WCAG compliance pays $1,000,000///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Federal court enters $25M judgment and permanent ban against Ascend Ecom after FTC alleges its 'AI-powered' passive-income storefronts earned clients virtually nothing///VERIFIED CASE FILE: FTC orders DoNotPay's 'world's first robot lawyer' to pay $193,000 and notify subscribers over unsubstantiated AI claims///VERIFIED CASE FILE: FTC v. Evolv: the AI scanner marketed as detecting all weapons missed a knife used in a school stabbing, and a federal court entered a permanent injunction///VERIFIED CASE FILE: FTC × IntelliVision: a 'zero bias, millions of faces' AI claim, measured against NIST///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Federal court bans Rite Aid from AI facial-recognition surveillance for five years after FTC alleges thousands of false-positive matches///VERIFIED CASE FILE: FTC final order: the '98% accurate' AI Content Detector was an unmodified student model, and its own published data showed 53.2% on real-world text///VERIFIED CASE FILE: The €15 million ChatGPT fine that didn't survive: Italy's Garante fined OpenAI, the Court of Rome annulled it///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A $2.275M class settlement takes the algorithm's score away: Louis v. SafeRent and the five-year rollback of tenant-screening scores for voucher applicants///VERIFIED CASE FILE: SEC AI washing enforcement: Delphia and Global Predictions pay $400,000 for AI claims they couldn't back///VERIFIED CASE FILE: SEC AI-washing order: Presto's drive-thru 'voice AI' needed a human on every order///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal court fined a public defender $1,500 for a fake citation, then declined to say AI wrote it///VERIFIED CASE FILE: John Deere See & Spray: independent university trials cut post-emergence herbicide 43% to 62%///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Akerlund v. Atlas Air: a federal appeals court refers a former Florida lawmaker to its lawyer-conduct committee over AI-hallucinated citations, filed twice///VERIFIED CASE FILE: The UK's DWP fraud model: a machine-learning system that saved an estimated 4.4 million pounds on Universal Credit advances///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Coinbase: AI spend cut nearly in half, and the biggest lever was caching, not cheaper models///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Notion and Decagon: an AI support agent, 34% faster resolution and 2x deflection///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Delivery Hero and n8n: account-lockout recovery automated in a single workflow///VERIFIED CASE FILE: JPMorgan's COIN: the famous 360,000-hours figure, and why it was never independently measured///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Klarna's AI customer-service assistant: the 2024 numbers and the 2025 walk-back///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Mango's first fully AI-generated campaign: Sunset Dream, 95 markets, and no public performance number///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Moderna's company-wide ChatGPT Enterprise rollout: 750 custom GPTs, from a vendor case study///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Octopus Energy's 'Magic Ink': AI that drafts support emails, with no job cuts///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Omega Healthcare and UiPath: document automation across billing, coding, and payer correspondence///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Otto's autonomous stock ordering: a deep-learning system that buys inventory on its own///VERIFIED CASE FILE: PZU and Tractable: from a detailed review of 20% of body-shop claims to nearly all, in real time///VERIFIED CASE FILE: TSXG Galicia: Spain's High Court of Justice of Galicia fines a lawyer €1,800 for an appeal built on 24 AI-fabricated citations, and sizes the fine to a legal-AI subscription///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Zalando's 2018 'algorithms replace 250 marketing jobs': the headline, and the hiring plan it left out///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Landberg v. City of New York: an AI-fabricated appellate brief drew $10,500 in sanctions///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Italy's Supreme Court fines an appellant €5,000 for AI-hallucinated case citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Barber v. Morawa: Michigan's first published appellate opinion sanctioning a lawyer for AI-fabricated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Withers v. City of Aberdeen: a federal court sanctions attorneys on both sides $8,000 for AI-hallucinated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Alabama Supreme Court dismisses appeal, fines lawyer $17,200 for AI-'hallucinated' citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: United States v. Farris: a federal appeals court denies a lawyer his pay and removes him from the case over AI-fabricated quotations from Westlaw's CoCounsel///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Prososki v. Regan: Nebraska Supreme Court strikes an appellate brief and refers counsel for discipline over fictitious, allegedly AI-generated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Whiting v. City of Athens: a federal appeals court fines two lawyers $15,000 each for briefs with 'over two dozen fake citations'///PENDING CASE FILE: In re Nwaubani: the Fourth Circuit publicly admonishes a lawyer over nonexistent citations 'potentially derived from generative AI'///VERIFIED CASE FILE: New York's first appellate AI-sanction: a lawyer who conceded using AI, 23 fabricated cases, and $10,000 in penalties (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v LeTennier)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Couvrette v. Wisnovsky (D. Or.): a $15,500 sanction for AI-fabricated citations, at $500 per fake case and $1,000 per fabricated quotation///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Dastou v. Holmes: a Massachusetts judge sanctions a lawyer for ChatGPT-fabricated jury instructions, no fine, but an MCLE course and no billing the client///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal judge struck a lawyer's brief over 17 AI-fabricated quotations and folded the conduct into a grievance referral///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Oregon Court of Appeals fines a lawyer $10,000 for AI-fabricated authority: the state's largest such penalty and the Ringo formula's biggest bill yet///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Fivehouse v. U.S. Dept. of Defense (E.D.N.C.): a federal prosecutor is publicly reprimanded for a brief with AI-fabricated quotations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal court fined a lawyer $6,000 for a brief built on an AI-hallucinated case///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Gauthier v. Goodyear: a Texas lawyer is sanctioned $2,000 for filing AI-hallucinated case citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: In re Marla C. Martin (Bankr. N.D. Ill.): $5,500 Rule 9011 Sanction for a ChatGPT-Fabricated Brief///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal judge fined a lawyer $5,000 for filing AI-fabricated case citations against T.D. Jakes///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Johnson v. Dunn: three lawyers are disqualified and referred to the bar for filing five ChatGPT-hallucinated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: An Ohio federal judge fines two lawyers $7,500 for AI-fabricated citations, 'the most egregious' Rule 11 violation in his 46 years on the bench///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Kohls v. Ellison: a court throws out a Stanford misinformation expert's declaration after GPT-4o invented its citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Kruse v. Karlen: Missouri appeals court fines a pro se litigant $10,000 after 22 of 24 cited cases turn out to be AI fabrications (Mo. App. E.D., Feb. 2024)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Nine of 27 citations were wrong and two cases did not exist: a special master ordered Ellis George and K&L Gates to pay $31,100///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A Kansas federal judge fined five attorneys $12,000 for AI-fabricated citations, and named the failure, not the AI///VERIFIED CASE FILE: The Ninth Circuit fines two lawyers $2,500 each and suspends them for six months over AI-hallucinated briefs, but the sanction is for candor, not for using AI///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal court fined a lawyer $6,000 for three briefs full of AI-fabricated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Oregon Court of Appeals fines a lawyer $2,000 for AI-fabricated authority, and sets a per-item price: $500 a fake citation, $1,000 a fake quote///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Wadsworth v. Walmart: AI hallucinated eight of nine cases in a Morgan and Morgan brief, and a federal judge fined the lawyers $5,000 and revoked one pro hac vice///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Czech Constitutional Court fines a lawyer 25,000 CZK for a complaint built on AI-hallucinated case law///VERIFIED CASE FILE: United States v. McGee: a federal judge fines a court-appointed defense lawyer $5,000 for AI-hallucinated citations produced by a Microsoft Word plug-in called Ghostwriter Legal (2025)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Noland v. Land of the Free: California's first published opinion on AI-fabricated citations ($10,000 sanction)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Ayinde v Haringey / Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank: the UK High Court's landmark ruling on AI-fabricated case-law///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Garner v. Kadince: Utah Court of Appeals Sanctions Counsel for ChatGPT-Hallucinated Citations (2025 UT App 80)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Murray (Wamba Wemba) v Victoria: a Federal Court of Australia indemnity-costs order after AI-fabricated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence: Delaware court rejects fair use for AI training data, finds 2,243 Westlaw headnotes infringed///ON RECORD: 72 VERIFIED · 1 PENDING///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Zillow shut down its algorithmic home-buying business after a $304M write-down and 25% layoffs///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal appeals court fines a lawyer $2,500 for an AI-drafted brief, even though she used purpose-built legal-AI tools///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Ontario Law Society Tribunal orders a lawyer to pay $31,150 in costs after Grok-generated fake citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: OTG New York v. Ottogi America: a New Jersey federal court fines a lawyer $3,000 for a reply brief built on AI-hallucinated citations (2025)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Torres Campos v. Munoz: a published California appellate opinion sanctions a lawyer $5,000 for citing AI-hallucinated cases in a dog-custody fight (2026)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Air Canada held liable for its website chatbot's bad advice: tribunal orders C$812.02 (Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal court prices an unchecked AI legal workflow: $3,000 sanctions each for the attorneys behind an AI-drafted brief with nearly thirty defective citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: €30.5 million for an illegal AI face database: the Dutch DPA's final, unappealable GDPR fine on Clearview AI///VERIFIED CASE FILE: iTutorGroup pays $365,000 after the EEOC alleges its application software auto-rejected 200+ older applicants, the settlement the agency's Chair tied to its AI enforcement push///VERIFIED CASE FILE: FTC final order: the 'AI-powered' web-accessibility widget that promised any-website WCAG compliance pays $1,000,000///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Federal court enters $25M judgment and permanent ban against Ascend Ecom after FTC alleges its 'AI-powered' passive-income storefronts earned clients virtually nothing///VERIFIED CASE FILE: FTC orders DoNotPay's 'world's first robot lawyer' to pay $193,000 and notify subscribers over unsubstantiated AI claims///VERIFIED CASE FILE: FTC v. Evolv: the AI scanner marketed as detecting all weapons missed a knife used in a school stabbing, and a federal court entered a permanent injunction///VERIFIED CASE FILE: FTC × IntelliVision: a 'zero bias, millions of faces' AI claim, measured against NIST///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Federal court bans Rite Aid from AI facial-recognition surveillance for five years after FTC alleges thousands of false-positive matches///VERIFIED CASE FILE: FTC final order: the '98% accurate' AI Content Detector was an unmodified student model, and its own published data showed 53.2% on real-world text///VERIFIED CASE FILE: The €15 million ChatGPT fine that didn't survive: Italy's Garante fined OpenAI, the Court of Rome annulled it///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A $2.275M class settlement takes the algorithm's score away: Louis v. SafeRent and the five-year rollback of tenant-screening scores for voucher applicants///VERIFIED CASE FILE: SEC AI washing enforcement: Delphia and Global Predictions pay $400,000 for AI claims they couldn't back///VERIFIED CASE FILE: SEC AI-washing order: Presto's drive-thru 'voice AI' needed a human on every order///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal court fined a public defender $1,500 for a fake citation, then declined to say AI wrote it///VERIFIED CASE FILE: John Deere See & Spray: independent university trials cut post-emergence herbicide 43% to 62%///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Akerlund v. Atlas Air: a federal appeals court refers a former Florida lawmaker to its lawyer-conduct committee over AI-hallucinated citations, filed twice///VERIFIED CASE FILE: The UK's DWP fraud model: a machine-learning system that saved an estimated 4.4 million pounds on Universal Credit advances///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Coinbase: AI spend cut nearly in half, and the biggest lever was caching, not cheaper models///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Notion and Decagon: an AI support agent, 34% faster resolution and 2x deflection///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Delivery Hero and n8n: account-lockout recovery automated in a single workflow///VERIFIED CASE FILE: JPMorgan's COIN: the famous 360,000-hours figure, and why it was never independently measured///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Klarna's AI customer-service assistant: the 2024 numbers and the 2025 walk-back///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Mango's first fully AI-generated campaign: Sunset Dream, 95 markets, and no public performance number///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Moderna's company-wide ChatGPT Enterprise rollout: 750 custom GPTs, from a vendor case study///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Octopus Energy's 'Magic Ink': AI that drafts support emails, with no job cuts///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Omega Healthcare and UiPath: document automation across billing, coding, and payer correspondence///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Otto's autonomous stock ordering: a deep-learning system that buys inventory on its own///VERIFIED CASE FILE: PZU and Tractable: from a detailed review of 20% of body-shop claims to nearly all, in real time///VERIFIED CASE FILE: TSXG Galicia: Spain's High Court of Justice of Galicia fines a lawyer €1,800 for an appeal built on 24 AI-fabricated citations, and sizes the fine to a legal-AI subscription///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Zalando's 2018 'algorithms replace 250 marketing jobs': the headline, and the hiring plan it left out///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Landberg v. City of New York: an AI-fabricated appellate brief drew $10,500 in sanctions///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Italy's Supreme Court fines an appellant €5,000 for AI-hallucinated case citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Barber v. Morawa: Michigan's first published appellate opinion sanctioning a lawyer for AI-fabricated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Withers v. City of Aberdeen: a federal court sanctions attorneys on both sides $8,000 for AI-hallucinated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Alabama Supreme Court dismisses appeal, fines lawyer $17,200 for AI-'hallucinated' citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: United States v. Farris: a federal appeals court denies a lawyer his pay and removes him from the case over AI-fabricated quotations from Westlaw's CoCounsel///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Prososki v. Regan: Nebraska Supreme Court strikes an appellate brief and refers counsel for discipline over fictitious, allegedly AI-generated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Whiting v. City of Athens: a federal appeals court fines two lawyers $15,000 each for briefs with 'over two dozen fake citations'///PENDING CASE FILE: In re Nwaubani: the Fourth Circuit publicly admonishes a lawyer over nonexistent citations 'potentially derived from generative AI'///VERIFIED CASE FILE: New York's first appellate AI-sanction: a lawyer who conceded using AI, 23 fabricated cases, and $10,000 in penalties (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v LeTennier)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Couvrette v. Wisnovsky (D. Or.): a $15,500 sanction for AI-fabricated citations, at $500 per fake case and $1,000 per fabricated quotation///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Dastou v. Holmes: a Massachusetts judge sanctions a lawyer for ChatGPT-fabricated jury instructions, no fine, but an MCLE course and no billing the client///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal judge struck a lawyer's brief over 17 AI-fabricated quotations and folded the conduct into a grievance referral///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Oregon Court of Appeals fines a lawyer $10,000 for AI-fabricated authority: the state's largest such penalty and the Ringo formula's biggest bill yet///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Fivehouse v. U.S. Dept. of Defense (E.D.N.C.): a federal prosecutor is publicly reprimanded for a brief with AI-fabricated quotations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal court fined a lawyer $6,000 for a brief built on an AI-hallucinated case///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Gauthier v. Goodyear: a Texas lawyer is sanctioned $2,000 for filing AI-hallucinated case citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: In re Marla C. Martin (Bankr. N.D. Ill.): $5,500 Rule 9011 Sanction for a ChatGPT-Fabricated Brief///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal judge fined a lawyer $5,000 for filing AI-fabricated case citations against T.D. Jakes///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Johnson v. Dunn: three lawyers are disqualified and referred to the bar for filing five ChatGPT-hallucinated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: An Ohio federal judge fines two lawyers $7,500 for AI-fabricated citations, 'the most egregious' Rule 11 violation in his 46 years on the bench///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Kohls v. Ellison: a court throws out a Stanford misinformation expert's declaration after GPT-4o invented its citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Kruse v. Karlen: Missouri appeals court fines a pro se litigant $10,000 after 22 of 24 cited cases turn out to be AI fabrications (Mo. App. E.D., Feb. 2024)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Nine of 27 citations were wrong and two cases did not exist: a special master ordered Ellis George and K&L Gates to pay $31,100///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A Kansas federal judge fined five attorneys $12,000 for AI-fabricated citations, and named the failure, not the AI///VERIFIED CASE FILE: The Ninth Circuit fines two lawyers $2,500 each and suspends them for six months over AI-hallucinated briefs, but the sanction is for candor, not for using AI///VERIFIED CASE FILE: A federal court fined a lawyer $6,000 for three briefs full of AI-fabricated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Oregon Court of Appeals fines a lawyer $2,000 for AI-fabricated authority, and sets a per-item price: $500 a fake citation, $1,000 a fake quote///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Wadsworth v. Walmart: AI hallucinated eight of nine cases in a Morgan and Morgan brief, and a federal judge fined the lawyers $5,000 and revoked one pro hac vice///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Czech Constitutional Court fines a lawyer 25,000 CZK for a complaint built on AI-hallucinated case law///VERIFIED CASE FILE: United States v. McGee: a federal judge fines a court-appointed defense lawyer $5,000 for AI-hallucinated citations produced by a Microsoft Word plug-in called Ghostwriter Legal (2025)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Noland v. Land of the Free: California's first published opinion on AI-fabricated citations ($10,000 sanction)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Ayinde v Haringey / Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank: the UK High Court's landmark ruling on AI-fabricated case-law///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Garner v. Kadince: Utah Court of Appeals Sanctions Counsel for ChatGPT-Hallucinated Citations (2025 UT App 80)///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Murray (Wamba Wemba) v Victoria: a Federal Court of Australia indemnity-costs order after AI-fabricated citations///VERIFIED CASE FILE: Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence: Delaware court rejects fair use for AI training data, finds 2,243 Westlaw headnotes infringed///ON RECORD: 72 VERIFIED · 1 PENDING///
01Why this exists
Every agency claims results. Almost none can be checked. In automation and AI-ops, where the field is young and the buyers are non-technical, that gap is expensive. TIN closes it.
for buyers
Stop guessing.
Verified before/after numbers from real engagements, with the client confirmed and the method on record.
for agencies
Proof beats marketing.
Turn a great project into a verified, citable asset that ranks in search and gets quoted by AI answer engines.
for the AI era
Be the cited source.
When someone asks ChatGPT "who's best at ops automation?", the answer comes from somewhere. TIN is built to be that source.
02How a badge is earned
Three checks clear before a green badge appears. If any fails, the story stays unverified. No exceptions, that rule is the whole product.
step 01
Independently validated
We re-research the story and check every figure against primary and independent sources before it can go green.
step 02
Evidence on record
Every number is backed by something checkable: a followable source, before/after metrics, documentation. No adjectives.
step 03
Method published
How each story was verified ships on the story itself. The record is public, not a claim in fine print.
03Latest case files
The registry starts here. Each entry is one checked outcome, typed and tagged.
Process Automation & AI-Led Ops
verified Zillow shut down its algorithmic home-buying business after a $304M write-down and 25% layoffs
On November 2, 2021 Zillow Group announced it would wind down Zillow Offers, its iBuying operation, which used Zillow's AI home-valuation (the 'Zestimate') to make automated cash offers, taking a ~$304 million Q3 inventory write-down, warning of a further $240-265 million in Q4 losses, and cutting its workforce by ~25% (about 2,000 jobs). CEO Rich Barton said 'the unpredictability in forecasting home prices far exceeds what we anticipated.'
Process Automation & AI-Led Ops
verified A federal appeals court fines a lawyer $2,500 for an AI-drafted brief, even though she used purpose-built legal-AI tools
In Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (No. 25-20086, filed Feb. 18, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sanctioned plaintiff's appellate counsel Heather Hersh $2,500 under Fed. R. App. P. 46(c) and its inherent authority. Her reply brief contained '16 instances of fabricated quotations and 5 additional serious misrepresentations of law or fact'; the court found she used generative AI to draft 'a substantial portion, if not all,' of it, and identified two of her named sources, Casetext/CoCounsel and vLex, as purpose-built legal-AI products, not general chatbots.
Process Automation & AI-Led Ops
verified Ontario Law Society Tribunal orders a lawyer to pay $31,150 in costs after Grok-generated fake citations
In Mazaheri v Law Society of Ontario (2026 ONLSTH 112), the Law Society Tribunal ordered a suspended lawyer to pay the regulator's full costs of $31,150 after he filed motion materials produced by generative AI (which he admitted was 'in particular Grok') that cited non-existent decisions and misused real ones. The panel called the AI misuse 'an additional and significantly aggravating factor' and noted it was the first time a party had put hallucinated authorities before the Tribunal.
Process Automation & AI-Led Ops
verified OTG New York v. Ottogi America: a New Jersey federal court fines a lawyer $3,000 for a reply brief built on AI-hallucinated citations (2025)
In OTG New York, Inc. v. Ottogi America, Inc. (D.N.J., No. 24-cv-07209), Magistrate Judge José R. Almonte sanctioned plaintiff's counsel Sukjin Henry Cho $3,000 under Rule 11(c) after Cho's reply brief cited nonexistent cases and fabricated legal propositions 'derived from generative artificial intelligence.' Cho confirmed he used AI, which produced hallucinated case law he incorporated without verification; the court struck the reply and ordered him to self-report the sanction to his state bars. No AI product is named.
/// on the ninja radar
Proof beats marketing.
Bring a real engagement to the dojo and turn it into a verified, citable asset, or read what's already on record.