Zavadovsky v. Republic of Austria, et al.

What the court wrote

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

id. at (citing a fake quotation from Thomas v. Patton, 939 So. 2d 139 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)); id. (citing a case, Young v. District of Columbia, 752 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010), that does not exist); Pls.’ Mot. Strike Response at 3 (misrepresenting the effect of Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b)); id. (citing a case, Beaucage v. Beaucage, 583 So 2d 846 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), that does not exist); id. (citing a fake quotation from Miller v. Fortune Ins. Co., 484 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1986)); Pls.’ Opp’n to Austrian Defs.’ Mot. at 10–11 (misrepresenting a holding from Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 905 F.2d 438 (D.C. Cir. 1990)); id. at 13 (misrepresenting a holding from Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988)). Plaintiffs’ citations to hallucinated authorities bear the hallmarks of reliance on an artificial intelligence (“AI”) tool. See Williams v. Cap. One Bank, N.A., No. 15 24-cv-2032, 2025 WL 843285, at *7 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2025) (“Courts have recently seen increasing reliance on artificial intelligence in legal proceedings, leading to the use of nonexistent citations in court documents.”). Plaintiffs insist that