Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Curry v. Capital One Auto Finance

United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina · Federal district courts · NC · 2026-03-26 · No. 5:25-CV-164-BO-KS · order

Fabricated or misquoted citations

On 2026-03-26, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied leave to amend because the proposed amended complaint’s additional fabricated citations showed bad faith and amendment would be futile. A self-represented party submitted a complaint with nonexistent or misstated legal provisions and fabricated or nonexistent authorities.

Disposition: The court granted the motion to dismiss, denied leave to amend, and directed the clerk to close the case.
Recorded conduct: Plaintiff's proposed amended complaints relied on fictitious ITPA provisions and fabricated citations after a warning. — outcome: dismissal; 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.

noting that it sought to assert new claims based on fictitious provisions of the North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA), and concluding that plaintiff likely used artificial intelligence to draft her first proposed amended complaint. That order cautioned plaintiff that the Court will not tolerate "computer generated morass that only serves to waste court time and resources ." Id.

Court document: damiencharlotin.com
Read: 2026-09-07 · court document read from a public copy; the court's own copy was not found online when checked (see notes)provisional
Found via: charlotin-hallucinations-db
Notes: Re-coded from the document 2026-09-08 (independent second read). Official copy not obtained 2026-09-08: not in the court's GovInfo feed for this docket (many district courts publish only some orders) (checked govinfo.gov (USCOURTS), CourtListener RECAP search).

United States court documents are public domain; the topic coding, disposition line and summary are SafeLegalAI's reading of the document for comparison, not a finding about any person named in it. This record summarises a public court document or official publication and reports what it says; SafeLegalAI makes no findings of its own. Individuals and organisations are named only as they appear in that public record. Anyone named may send a right of reply, correction or contextual update (for example an appeal, vacatur or later disposition) via /report; we add a dated note where appropriate. Reply or correct this record.

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