Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Chapel v. Americredit Financial Services & Experian
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · Federal district courts · AL · · No. 2:25-cv-01341-MHH · 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 admonished the filer to verify authorities before presenting AI-assisted or otherwise unsupported legal citations.
- Recorded conduct
- A self-represented litigant submitted a filing using quotations that did not appear in the cited source. — 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 Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face