AI hallucination examples: 70 cases courts, tribunals and publishers put on record
Contents · 13 sections
An AI hallucination is an AI system stating something false as fact. The examples that cost someone money or a career sit in court records and retractions: briefs citing cases that do not exist, quotations no judge wrote, a newspaper reading list of invented books, and company chatbots stating policies and titles that were not true. TIN has read 70 such cases from 11 countries in the records themselves source. In US dollars, the orders range from a $1,000 sanction source to awards such as Lacey v. State Farm’s “$31,100 ordered jointly and severally, payable to the defense”, costs ordered alongside non-monetary sanctions source; the Couvrette file reports a later fee award of roughly $80,000 that TIN has not re-checked source. It is a checked sample, not every case.
Contents
- What counts as an AI hallucination on this page
- The record in numbers
- Twelve examples, by where the invention appeared
- What it cost
- When AI was blamed but not proven
- Patterns across the record
- How to check an AI output before it costs you
- What this page cannot tell you
What counts as an AI hallucination on this page
Every one of the AI hallucination examples on this page is something an AI system invented and presented as real: an authority, a quotation, a book, a qualification or a policy.
The inclusion rule, in one sentence: every live case file on theinternetninja.com whose address contains “fabricat” or “hallucin”, plus Moffatt v. Air Canada, Mata v. Avianca and the eight files that record a fake or fictitious citation without either word in the address (Kohls, Miller, Prososki, TSXG Galicia, Coomer, Kruse, Whiting and Hayes), counted on 2026-10-16 source.
Some of the 70 are cases where AI was suspected, presumed or denied rather than found; the invented material is on the record either way.
The record in numbers
Each count below is TIN’s own tally of its case files on 2026-10-16 source. The body type is TIN’s reading of the court or publisher named in each file. Country is the file’s country tag.
| Who recorded it | Case files |
|---|---|
| Trial or first-instance court (special masters, family and county courts included) | 34 |
| Appellate court | 24 |
| Top court | 8 |
| Tribunal | 2 |
| Publisher | 2 |
Source for every row: source.
| Country | Case files |
|---|---|
| United States | 53 |
| Canada | 3 |
| United Kingdom | 3 |
| Italy | 3 |
| Australia | 2 |
| Czech Republic | 1 |
| Germany | 1 |
| India | 1 |
| Netherlands | 1 |
| Spain | 1 |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 |
Source for every row: source.
By the year in each file’s address, 41 are from 2026, 24 from 2025, 4 from 2024 and 1 from 2023 source.
Twelve examples, by where the invention appeared
Each cell is worded as its case file words it.
| Example | Who recorded it (country, year) | What the AI invented | What happened |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mata v. Avianca | US District Court, S.D.N.Y. (US, 2023) | Six cited decisions that respondents acknowledged were “generated by ChatGPT and do not exist" | "imposing a $5,000 penalty jointly and severally under Rule 11” source source |
| Lacey v. State Farm | Special Master (US, 2025) | “Approximately 9 of 27 legal citations incorrect in some way”; “At least 2 of the cited authorities do not exist at all" | "$31,100 ordered jointly and severally, payable to the defense” source source |
| Ayinde v Haringey | England and Wales Divisional Court (UK, 2025) | “fabricated, AI-generated (or suspected-AI) case authorities" | "a pupil barrister and a law centre were ordered to pay £2,000 each in wasted costs and referred to the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority” source source |
| Czech Constitutional Court, I. ÚS 3004/25 | Constitutional Court (Czech Republic, 2025) | “12 Constitutional Court / ECtHR decisions, a substantial part of which do not exist" | "25,000 CZK procedural fine”; the court “presumed the submission was generated by an AI model” source |
| Corte di Cassazione, no. 23006/2026 | Supreme Court (Italy, 2026) | “3 non-existent Cassation precedents" | "€5,000.00 ordered paid to the Cassa delle Ammende” source |
| Pooja Ramesh Singh v. J&K Bank | Supreme Court of India (India, 2026) | The tribunal’s own research: “non-existent, fake and hallucinated case ‘precedents’ generated through AI”, “not cited by counsel” | The NCLT and NCLAT orders were set aside; “No monetary penalty was imposed on any party or advocate” source source |
| United States v. Farris | US Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (US, 2026) | “fabricated quotations attributed to real cases”; tool: “Westlaw CoCounsel" | "Denial of all CJA compensation for the appeal + removal from the representation” and a bar referral; “no dollar fine” source source |
| Kohls v. Ellison | US federal court (US, 2025) | In an expert declaration: “Two cited academic articles did not exist; a third was mis-attributed; the fabrications came from GPT-4o" | "Expert declaration excluded in its entirety” source |
| Moffatt v. Air Canada | BC Civil Resolution Tribunal (Canada, 2024) | The airline’s website chatbot misstated its bereavement-fare policy | ”The order was C$812.02 within 14 days: C$650.88 in damages, C$36.14 in pre-judgment interest, and C$125 in CRT fees” source source |
| OLG Hamm (Aesthetify) | Higher Regional Court of Hamm (Germany, 2026) | A clinic chatbot gave its directors specialist titles they do not hold, “using titles that in two cases do not exist" | "cease and desist, under threat of an administrative fine of up to 250,000 euros for each violation”; “Status: not final” source source |
| Chicago Sun-Times reading list | Publisher (US, 2025) | Books that do not exist: “only 5 of 15 real; 10 fake, authors real” source | ”CEO acknowledged the error; subscribers not charged for the special edition” source |
| Ars Technica retraction | Publisher (US, 2026) | “AI-fabricated quotations falsely attributed to matplotlib maintainer Scott Shambaugh" | "Ars Technica retracted in full”; the editor-in-chief called it “a serious failure of our standards” source source |
In court filings
In these cases, a lawyer, litigant or prosecutor files a document citing authority that does not exist. In Mata v. Avianca, the court ordered counsel to notify their client and every judge falsely named as an author of a fake opinion source. Top courts outside the US hold the same line: the Czech Constitutional Court held that lawyers bear full responsibility for a filing including any hallucinated AI argumentation source.
From the bench
In Pooja Ramesh Singh, the invented precedents came from the tribunal, not the lawyers. The Supreme Court of India held that such a decision is “no decision in the eyes of the law” and restored the case for fresh disposal source.
From an expert witness
In Kohls v. Ellison, the false citations sat in a declaration filed by Minnesota’s Attorney General from a Stanford AI-misinformation scholar, who had used GPT-4o to help draft it; the judge refused to let the state fix it source.
Chatbots speaking for a company
Two decisions on record hold a company to what its chatbot told the public. The tribunal in Moffatt rejected Air Canada’s argument that the chatbot was “a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions” source. The Higher Regional Court of Hamm rejected the defence that an autonomous AI is a “third party” the operator cannot be blamed for, and allowed an appeal to Germany’s Federal Court of Justice source. TIN’s chatbot lawsuit analysis covers who pays when a chatbot gets it wrong.
In print
The Sun-Times list was AI-generated by a freelancer and licensed via King Features (Hearst) source. At Ars Technica, the invented material was quotations put in the mouth of a real person, and the retraction came with an apology source.
What it cost
US-dollar orders, by size
For the 47 US files that state an amount or state no monetary sanction, the table buckets each order by the total its case file states, or by the per-person figure where the file states only an amount “each” source. Amounts are never added across people.
| Order, as the case file states it | US case files |
|---|---|
| No monetary sanction | 16 |
| Under $5,000 | 9 |
| $5,000 to $9,999 | 11 |
| $10,000 and over | 11 |
Source for every row: source.
Three of the 16 have no amount decided yet: Kjoller source and Leiske source, where no sanction has been imposed, and Dixon, where the amount, if any, “comes in the separate order that ‘will follow’” source. Six US files are not bucketed: the two publishers, Prososki v. Regan, whose case file states neither an amount nor that there was none source, Barber v. Morawa, whose amount is set on remand source, and two orders built on donations, “a $1,000 donation each” plus CLE in Connecticut source and a donation with fees and a client refund in Garner v. Kadince source.
In Lacey v. State Farm, a special master imposed non-monetary sanctions and awarded costs: “$31,100 ordered jointly and severally, payable to the defense” source; the Couvrette file reports a later fee award of roughly $80,000 that TIN has not re-checked source. Some courts price by the item: in Ringo v. Colquhoun, the Oregon Court of Appeals set “$500 for each of two fabricated citations and $1,000 for one fabricated quotation” source, and an Illinois appeals court fined Mason Cole “$1,500 for each of 10 false citations” source.
Orders in other currencies
Each order below is in the currency the decision used. None is converted, and none is compared with a dollar order.
| Case | Country | The order, as its case file words it |
|---|---|---|
| ArabyAds v. Alam | UAE (ADGM) | “AED 282,508 on the indemnity basis” |
| Mazaheri v Law Society of Ontario | Canada | The regulator’s full costs, C$31,150 |
| A. P. v. S. K. | Canada | C$1,000 in costs, on top of the costs of the appeal |
| Moffatt v. Air Canada | Canada | ”C$812.02 in total” |
| Tribunale di Siracusa 338/2026 | Italy | ”€14,103 in costs, a further €14,103 in reckless-litigation damages” and “€2,000 to the Cassa delle Ammende” |
| Cassazione 23006/2026 | Italy | ”€5,000.00 ordered paid to the Cassa delle Ammende” |
| Cassazione 11431/2026 | Italy | ”EUR 3,000 to the Cassa delle Ammende” |
| Rechtbank Amsterdam | Netherlands | ”a half point (€2,315.50) to the costs” |
| TSXG Galicia | Spain | ”fined a lawyer €1,800” |
| Czech Constitutional Court | Czech Republic | ”25,000 CZK procedural fine” |
| Ayinde v Haringey | United Kingdom | ”£2,000 each in wasted costs” |
| Murray (Wamba Wemba) v Victoria | Australia | Costs on an indemnity basis; “No dollar figure was fixed” |
Source for every row: the case file linked in its first cell.
Some outcomes carry no amount: in Dixon v. Cartagena, a judge struck a brief over 17 AI-fabricated quotations and folded the conduct into a grievance referral source.
The full sanctions detail, court by court, is in TIN’s analysis of the AI fabricated citations sanctions record.
When AI was blamed but not proven
An invented citation is a finding. That AI produced it is sometimes found, sometimes inferred and sometimes denied. These seven case files record a court that declined to find AI use, or counsel who denied it.
| Case | What the record says about AI |
|---|---|
| US v. Hayes | The judge held she “need not make any finding” that AI was used; “The AI causation is not established by anyone.” |
| Ayinde v Haringey | ”the barrister denied using AI in that case but said she may have inadvertently done so while using Google or Safari” |
| Prososki v. Regan | ”counsel denied using AI, and the court held its analysis was the same either way” |
| Rechtbank Amsterdam | ”the defendants’ counsel denied AI use and could not explain how it got there” |
| Whiting v. City of Athens | ”The court asked whether they used generative AI; they did not respond, and the court made no express AI finding” |
| Mavy v. Commissioner | ”the court declined to find AI was actually used” |
| In re Nwaubani | ”the attorney denied using AI and the court expressly declined to decide the question” |
Source for every row: the case file linked in its first cell.
In each of these, the sanction stood. In Hayes the defender was fined $1,500 source, and the Whiting attorneys $15,000 each source. Elsewhere the language is an inference, not a finding: the Czech court “presumed” AI source, the Tenth Circuit in Lichfield “assumed” it source, and the County Court at Dudley recorded “the suspicion they had been created using AI” source.
Patterns across the record
The patterns below are TIN’s inference, not measured findings.
Legal-research tools, not only chatbots
The tools named on record include products built for lawyers. Farris names Westlaw’s CoCounsel source. Wadsworth v. Walmart names the firm’s in-house AI platform MX2.law source. US v. McGee names “a Microsoft Word plug-in called Ghostwriter Legal, whose default engine is ChatGPT” source. Fletcher v. Experian fined a lawyer “even though she used purpose-built legal-AI tools” source.
The AI excuse aggravates
The Corte di Cassazione put it in one line: AI-hallucinated citations “do not mitigate but aggravate procedural fault” source. The Law Society Tribunal of Ontario called the AI misuse “an additional and significantly aggravating factor” source. Courts treat “the AI did it” as a reason for a heavier order, not a lighter one; two decisions say so in terms, and the files hold no comparison of orders with and without the excuse.
The same lawyer recurs
Attorney Tyrone A. Blackburn appears in three case files. Gardner v. Combs fined him $6,000 source; Jakes v. Youngblood, $5,000 source; and in Dixon v. Cartagena his brief was struck source.
Courts in 11 countries
The record runs from the Supreme Court of India to the Abu Dhabi Global Market Court source. That courts outside the US treat invented authority the same way is TIN’s inference, not a measured finding; the sample is too US-heavy to show a rate for any other country.
The companies that pulled an AI system back after it failed in public are tracked in TIN’s AI walk-backs tracker.
How to check an AI output before it costs you
The Mata court wrote that “Technological advances are commonplace and there is nothing inherently improper about using a reliable artificial intelligence tool for assistance. But existing rules impose a gatekeeping role on attorneys to ensure the accuracy of their filings” source. The Ninth Circuit placed the violation “not at the point of research and drafting, but at the point of signing and filing” source.
- Open every citation in its source. The Mata lawyer, asked what he found when he looked up the decision he cited, told the court: “I couldn’t find it” source.
- Check quotations word for word, not just the case name. Farris and Dixon turned on quotations attributed to real cases source.
- Treat a legal-research tool like any other source. Fletcher was fined despite purpose-built tools source.
- Check what your chatbot tells the public. Air Canada and the Hamm clinic were both held to their bots’ answers source.
What this page cannot tell you
- A checked sample, not a census. The 70 are the files TIN has read in the record, counted on 2026-10-16 source.
- US-heavy. 53 of the 70 are US files source, so the country table shows where TIN has read cases, not where AI fails most.
- Years are the year in each case file’s address: the decision year for courts and tribunals, the publication year for the two publishers. They are not a trend in how often AI hallucinates.
- No rate for any tool. Many files name no tool, and the ones that do write it differently, so no file count by tool is given.
- Amounts do not compare across currencies. No order here is converted, summed across people or averaged.
- AI attribution varies. In several files AI is a court’s inference or presumption, and in seven it was denied or left undecided.
Read next
- AI fabricated citations: what the sanctions record shows: the court-by-court sanctions detail behind the cost section.
- AI chatbot lawsuits: what the adjudicated record shows: who pays when a company’s chatbot gets it wrong.
- Mata v. Avianca: the 2023 sanctions order later rulings cite, read from the court’s own opinion.
- The AI walk-backs tracker: the companies that pulled AI back after it failed in public.
Sources
- TIN, case file registry, counted 2026-10-16. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/
- TIN case file, Mata v. Avianca. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/mata-v-avianca-chatgpt-fake-citations-5000-sanction-rule-11-sdny-2023/
- TIN case file, Lacey v. State Farm. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/lacey-v-state-farm-ellis-george-kl-gates-ai-fabricated-citations-31100-special-master-sanctions-2025/
- TIN case file, Ayinde v Haringey. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/ayinde-v-haringey-uk-high-court-ewhc-1383-2000-wasted-costs-ai-fabricated-citations-bsb-sra-referral-2025/
- TIN case file, Czech Constitutional Court, I. ÚS 3004/25. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/cz-ustavni-soud-i-us-3004-25-25000-czk-fine-lawyer-ai-fabricated-constitutional-court-ecthr-citations-2025/
- TIN case file, Corte di Cassazione no. 23006/2026. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/italy-cassazione-23006-2026-5000-euro-ai-fabricated-citations-diligenza-digitale/
- TIN case file, Corte di Cassazione no. 11431/2026. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/italy-cassazione-11431-2026-sez7-penale-3000-euro-ai-fabricated-citations-diligenza-digitale/
- TIN case file, Tribunale di Siracusa no. 338/2026. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/italy-tribunale-siracusa-338-2026-spitaleri-30206-euro-ai-fabricated-citations-lite-temeraria/
- TIN case file, Pooja Ramesh Singh v. J&K Bank. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/pooja-ramesh-singh-v-jk-bank-supreme-court-india-insc-668-nclt-ai-hallucinated-precedents-set-aside-2026/
- TIN case file, United States v. Farris. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/us-v-farris-6th-cir-howe-cocounsel-ai-fabricated-quotations-cja-compensation-denied-removed-2026/
- TIN case file, Kohls v. Ellison. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/kohls-v-ellison-court-excludes-stanford-ai-misinformation-expert-declaration-gpt4o-fake-citations-2025/
- TIN case file, Moffatt v. Air Canada. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/air-canada-chatbot-bereavement-misinfo-tribunal-orders-812-cad-negligent-misrepresentation-2024/
- TIN case file, OLG Hamm (Aesthetify). https://theinternetninja.com/stories/olg-hamm-aesthetify-ai-chatbot-fabricated-facharzt-titles-uwg-liability-cease-desist-2026/
- TIN case file, Chicago Sun-Times reading list. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/chicago-sun-times-ai-fabricated-summer-reading-list-10-of-15-fake-books-king-features-2025/
- TIN case file, Ars Technica retraction. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/ars-technica-retracts-article-ai-fabricated-quotations-scott-shambaugh-2026/
- TIN case file, Amarsingh v. Frontier Airlines. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/amarsingh-v-frontier-airlines-10th-cir-hartz-1000-chatgpt-seven-fabricated-citations-frap-38-maryland-referral-2026/
- TIN case file, Kjoller v. Superior Court. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/kjoller-v-superior-court-cal-supreme-court-s293723-nevada-county-da-jesse-wilson-ai-fabricated-citations-osc-directed-2026/
- TIN case file, Leiske v. Kidd. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/leiske-v-kidd-del-ch-lori-will-richards-layton-finger-rollo-genai-hallucinated-citations-rule-11-show-cause-2026/
- TIN case file, Dixon v. Cartagena. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/dixon-v-cartagena-sdny-blackburn-ai-fabricated-quotations-struck-grievance-referral-2026/
- TIN case file, Barber v. Morawa. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/barber-v-morawa-mich-ct-app-first-published-ai-fabricated-citations-vexatious-appeal-sanction-grievance-referral-2026/
- TIN case file, Connecticut Supreme Court, Tov Realty. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/ct-supreme-court-tov-realty-kosel-gottlieb-glg-law-chatgpt-hallucinated-citations-1000-donation-cle-first-impression-2026/
- TIN case file, Garner v. Kadince. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/garner-v-kadince-utah-appeals-ai-fabricated-citations-royer-v-nelson-sanctions-2025/
- TIN case file, Ringo v. Colquhoun. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/ringo-v-colquhoun-oregon-appeals-watson-2000-ai-fabricated-citations-500-per-cite-1000-per-quote-2025/
- TIN case file, Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/scott-v-illinois-hrc-ill-app-1st-van-tine-cole-15000-chatgpt-fabricated-citations-rule-375-2026/
- TIN case file, ArabyAds v. Alam. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/arabyads-v-alam-adgm-cfi-heath-282508-aed-mio-legal-ai-fabricated-authorities-indemnity-costs-2025/
- TIN case file, Mazaheri v Law Society of Ontario. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/mazaheri-v-law-society-ontario-onlsth-112-31150-costs-grok-ai-fabricated-citations-2026/
- TIN case file, A. P. v. S. K. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/a-p-v-s-k-2026-qcca-1092-quebec-court-of-appeal-chatgpt-fabricated-case-law-1000-cad-costs-self-represented-2026/
- TIN case file, Rechtbank Amsterdam. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/rechtbank-amsterdam-rbams-2026-8258-dsm-fox-fabricated-citation-2315-euro-proceskosten-ai-hallucination-2026/
- TIN case file, TSXG Galicia. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/tsxg-galicia-recurso-5472-abogado-1800-euros-ia-24-citas-fabricadas-buena-fe-procesal-2026/
- TIN case file, Murray (Wamba Wemba) v Victoria. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/murray-wamba-wemba-v-victoria-fca-731-massar-briggs-ai-fabricated-citations-indemnity-costs-2025/
- TIN case file, US v. Hayes. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/us-v-hayes-federal-defender-1500-sanction-fictitious-citation-court-declines-to-find-ai-use-2025/
- TIN case file, Prososki v. Regan. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/prososki-v-regan-nebraska-supreme-court-lake-ai-fictitious-citations-brief-struck-appeal-dismissed-discipline-referral-2026/
- TIN case file, Whiting v. City of Athens. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/whiting-v-city-of-athens-sixth-circuit-fake-citations-15000-punitive-sanction-each-attorney-2026/
- TIN case file, Mavy v. Commissioner of Social Security. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/mavy-v-commissioner-social-security-d-ariz-bachus-bam-12-of-19-ai-fabricated-citations-pro-hac-vice-revoked-wsba-referral-2025/
- TIN case file, In re Nwaubani. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/in-re-nwaubani-4th-cir-standing-panel-attorney-discipline-ai-fabricated-citations-public-admonishment-2026/
- TIN case file, Lichfield v. Kubler. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/lichfield-v-kubler-10th-cir-federico-published-ai-fabricated-citations-no-sanction-notice-of-errata-2026/
- TIN case file, Rodney v Gee’z Micro Bar. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/rodney-v-geez-micro-bar-county-court-dudley-grimshaw-aml-legal-sra-referral-ai-fabricated-citations-2026/
- TIN case file, Wadsworth v. Walmart. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/wadsworth-v-walmart-morgan-morgan-ai-hallucinated-citations-5000-rule-11-sanctions-2025/
- TIN case file, United States v. McGee. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/us-v-mcgee-sd-ala-moorer-johnson-5000-ghostwriter-legal-ai-fabricated-citations-sanction-2025/
- TIN case file, Fletcher v. Experian. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/fletcher-v-experian-5th-cir-hersh-2500-ai-fabricated-citations-frap-46c-inherent-authority-2026/
- TIN case file, Gardner v. Combs. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/gardner-v-combs-dnj-tyrone-blackburn-ai-fabricated-masha-citation-6000-rule-11-sanction-2025/
- TIN case file, Jakes v. Youngblood. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/jakes-v-youngblood-wd-pa-blackburn-ai-fabricated-citations-5000-rule-11-sanction-2025/
- TIN case file, Lnu v. Blanche. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/lnu-v-blanche-9th-cir-sethi-rounds-2500-each-ai-fabricated-citations-six-month-suspension-2026/
- TIN case file, Couvrette v. Wisnovsky. https://theinternetninja.com/stories/couvrette-v-wisnovsky-d-oregon-brigandi-15500-ai-fabricated-citations-500-per-case-1000-per-quote-2025/
- TIN, “AI fabricated citations: what the court and tribunal sanctions record shows”. https://theinternetninja.com/blog/ai-fabricated-citations-what-the-sanctions-record-shows-2026/
- TIN, “AI chatbot lawsuit: what the adjudicated record shows”. https://theinternetninja.com/blog/ai-chatbot-lawsuit-what-the-adjudicated-record-shows-2026/
- TIN, AI walk-backs tracker. https://theinternetninja.com/walk-backs/
Questions
What is an AI hallucination?
An AI system stating something false as fact: a case that does not exist, a quotation nobody said, a book nobody wrote, a policy a company does not have.
What is an example of a hallucination in AI?
In Mata v. Avianca, a brief cited six decisions that the lawyers acknowledged were generated by ChatGPT and do not exist, and the court imposed a $5,000 penalty jointly and severally under Rule 11. Outside court, the Chicago Sun-Times ran a summer reading list on which only 5 of 15 books were real.
Which AI hallucinates the most?
TIN's record measures no rate for any tool. The case files name ChatGPT, Grok, GPT-4o and Westlaw's CoCounsel among others, and many name no tool at all, so no ranking can be drawn from them.
How do you check if AI is hallucinating?
Open every citation, quotation and figure in its original source before you rely on it. The courts in TIN's record put that duty on whoever signs or files, and a purpose-built legal-research tool did not exempt anyone.
What happened to the lawyers who used ChatGPT for fake cases?
In Mata v. Avianca, the court imposed a $5,000 penalty jointly and severally under Rule 11 and ordered counsel to notify their client and every judge falsely named as an author of a fake opinion. Later US orders on record range from no fine at all to awards such as the $31,100 ordered jointly and severally in Lacey v. State Farm, costs ordered alongside non-monetary sanctions; the Couvrette file reports a later fee award of roughly $80,000 that TIN has not re-checked.
Can a company be held liable for what its AI chatbot says?
In the two decisions on this page, yes. A Canadian tribunal ordered Air Canada to pay C$812.02 over its website chatbot's bereavement-fare answer, and the Higher Regional Court of Hamm held a clinic liable for titles its chatbot invented; that decision is not final.
Is every fake citation caused by AI?
Not on the record. In US v. Hayes the judge held she need not make any finding that AI was used, and in Prososki v. Regan counsel denied using AI. In several other cases the court presumed or suspected AI without a finding.
- Written by
- TIN research desk. No single byline: the brand is the work.
- Data used
- 43 case files, each linked where it is used.
- Rules
- Every figure carries its source link, and nothing is rounded or invented. How TIN works →
- Updated
- 2026-10-16