Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Wendy Wolkenstein and Rebecca Knepp v. Dan Heinrich and Samual Tillery
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada · Federal district courts · NV · · No. 2:25-cv-01138-APG-NJK · order
On 2026-04-06, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted default judgment in part, denied paralegal costs, and warned the plaintiffs that fake AI-drafted cases may lead to sanctions. A self-represented party submitted a motion with nonexistent or misstated legal provisions, fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities.
- Disposition
- The court granted default judgment in part, denied paralegal costs, and warned the plaintiffs that fake AI-drafted cases may lead to sanctions.
- Recorded conduct
- The motion used nonexistent or misstated legal provisions, fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities, including Stanley v. University of Southern California and Shum v. Intel Corp, which the court found nonexistent, misquoted, or unsupported. — 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.
in briefs, usually as the result of using generative AI software, like ChatGPT, to draft court filings. Johnson v. MINI of Las Vegas, No. 2:25-cv-00725-APG-EJY, 2025 WL 2718525, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 24, 2025). Generative AI often invents fake cases and legal precedent, and using it is no excuse to not verify the veracity of citations. Having to research fake authority and spend time chasing down what is not a real case wastes the court’s time and resources. Going forward, the plaintiffs are warned of their duty under Rule 11(b)(2) and that citing fake cases drafted by generative AI may violate this rule. Failure to comply in the future may result in sanctions, such as an order to pay a penalty into the court, or nonmonetary directives. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4). Despite these shortcomings, the plaintiffs’ motion satisfies the factors set forth in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Default has been entered against the defendants. ECF No. 12. I thus find good cause to grant the motion in part. I decline to award the plaintiffs their paralegal costs because those are ordinarily not
Authorities cited in the passage: Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4)
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face