Skip to content

Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Chapel v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · Federal district courts · AL · · No. 2:25-cv-01341 · memorandum opinion

On 2026-05-21, in Chapel v. Americredit Financial Services & Experian, the Northern District of Alabama admonished the filer to verify authorities before presenting AI-assisted or otherwise unsupported legal citations. A self-represented litigant submitted a filing using quotations that did not appear in the cited source.

Disposition
The court granted GM Financial’s motion to compel arbitration, dismissed Experian, stayed the remaining matter, and warned plaintiff about verifying computer-generated content.
Recorded conduct
The pro se plaintiff quoted Brown v. Genesis Healthcare and Preston v. Ferrer for language that did not appear in those cases or any case the court could find. The court warned about verifying computer-generated content. — outcome: warning; actor: litigant in person
Canonical record
Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rules

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

5), but these quotations do not appear anywhere in these cases or in any other case the Court can find. Generative artificial intelligence likely produced these unreliable quotations. The Court does not prohibit the use of AI, but to comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other applicable legal and ethical standards, attorneys and pro se litigants must review and verify computer-generated content to ensure that the content is entirely accurate and complies with all governing standards. TERM Docs. 18 and 19 and mail a copy of this order to Mr.

Authorities cited in the passage: Rule 11

compiled by the SafeLegalAI editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-08v0.2.2coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub