Allison v. Shutterfly LifeTouch LLC

What the court wrote

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

In any event, Norberg is a district court case—it is not precedential, and certainly not “controlling.”2 Allison’s mischaracterization of the cases he cites, as well as his filing of prior documents that include citations to fictitious cases, are “hallmarks of a so-called AI hallucination, a circumstance where anAI large language model generates an output that is fictional, inaccurate, or nonsensical.” See Jones v. Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 164 F.4th 967, 969–70 (7th Cir. 2026); see also see also Turnage v. Associated Bank, N.A., No. 25-3004, 2025 WL 3052638, at *3 (D. Minn. Sept. 12, 2025) (“Every filing in a federal court that contains citations to phony case law amounts to a violation of Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There is no pro se exception to Rule 11(b).”). Allison suggests that he personally suffered “emotional distress arising from the loss of control over sixteen images of his minor son and the risk that an unknown third party may have access to them.” (Reply [84] at 6.) Assuming he has standing to bring such a claim, these allegations also do not state a plausible claim for relief. ... Allison attacks this as a “transparent and cynical litigation tactic designed to give the Court a basis to declare the breach of contract claim moot and dismiss the entire case,” and urges that the package of reprints“ignores the true harm . . . caused by the reckless mishandling of a minor’s sensitive images.” (Id.) Perhaps Allison believes that once he filed a lawsuit, Shutterfly’s compliance with its own terms of service by presenting reprints and a refund constitutes a “cynical litigation tactic.” The court does not share that belief.

Authorities cited in the passage: See Jones v. Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 164 F · Turnage v. Associated Bank · Rule 11(b)