Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
O.K., LLC v. Melka
California Court of Appeal, Second District · State appellate courts · CA · · No. LC103261 · opinion
The California Court of Appeal, Second District on 2026-04-23 affirmed the judgment, awarded appellate costs to O.K., and rejected record-augmentation arguments tied to alleged fabricated citations in O.K., LLC v. Melka. The self-represented party filed a reply brief with one fabricated case citation and one mischaracterized case citation.
- Disposition
- The court affirmed the judgment, awarded appellate costs to O.K., and rejected record-augmentation arguments tied to alleged fabricated citations.
- Recorded conduct
- The self-represented party filed a reply brief with one fabricated case citation and one mischaracterized case citation. — outcome: other; 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.
’s respondent’s brief highlights the deficits in the appellate record and asks this court to affirm on that basis. The respondent’s brief also complains that several of the cases cited by Melka in her opening brief either do not exist or do not support the claimed proposition for which they were cited— hallmarks, in respondent’s view, of use of an artificial intelligence tool to generate legal citations. The respondent’s brief also endeavors to rebut Melka’s arguments on the merits, insofar as permitted by the state of the record. Melka responded by filing a reply brief and a motion to augment the appellate record. Her motion seeks to augment the record with two items: O.
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face