Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Hodges v. McGough Enterprises LLC
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · Federal district courts · NY · · No. 23 Civ. 5016 (NSR)(JCM) · order
On 2026-05-26, in Hodges v. McGough Enterprises LLC, the Southern District of New York warned the filer that future use of false, nonexistent, or unsupported authorities may result in sanctions. A self-represented litigant filed a motion using nonexistent or hallucinated authorities.
- Disposition
- The court warned the filer that future use of false, nonexistent, or unsupported authorities may result in sanctions.
- Recorded conduct
- A self-represented litigant filed a motion using nonexistent or hallucinated authorities. — 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.
This raises concern that these cases may be the result of generative artificial intelligence hallucinations.7 See Smith v. Smith, 5:25-CV-1077 (MAD/DJS), 2025 WL 3706691, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2025).8 “Although in some circumstances courts will make ‘some allowances for a pro se Plaintiff's failure to cite to proper legal authority,’ it is ‘no more acceptable for a pro se litigant to submit briefs with fake case citations than it is for a lawyer to do so.’” Fecteau v. Safety Nat’l Cas. Corp., No. 25-CV-3821 (KMK), 2026 WL 821567, at *24 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2026) (quoting Dukuray v. Experian Info. Sols., 23 Civ. 9043 (AT)(GS), 2024 WL 3812259, at *11-12 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2024)). All page number citations herein refer to the page number assigned upon electronic filing unless otherwise noted. “Generative artificial intelligence tools can fabricate or ‘hallucinate’ legal precedent.” Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA, 1:25-cv-2857-GHW, 2025 WL 1916119, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. ... Further, Plaintiff is advised that “filings with citations to nonexistent cases may result in sanctions, such as [his] submissions being stricken, filing restrictions or monetary penalties being imposed, or the case being dismissed.” Dukuray, 2024 WL 3812259, at *12. B. Motion for a Protective Order Plaintiff moves for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1). (Docket No. 125). Rule 26 governs “[t]he scope of discovery in a federal civil action,” Nat'l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Cuomo, 332 F.R.D. 420, 428 (N.D.N.Y. 2019), and sets forth: A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order . . . .
Authorities cited in the passage: See Smith v. Smith, 5:25-CV-1077 (MAD/DJS) · Fecteau v. Safety Nat’l Cas. Corp., No. 25-CV-3821 (KMK) · Dukuray v. Experian Info. Sols., 23 Civ · Romero v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA, 1:25-cv-2857-GHW, 2025 WL 1916119, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. ... Further, Plaintiff is advised that “filings with citations to nonexistent cases may result in sanctions, such as [his] submissions being stricken, filing restrictions or monetary penalties being imposed, or the case being dismissed.” Dukuray, 2024 WL 3812259, at *12. B. Motion for a Protective Order Plaintiff moves for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) · Nat'l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Cuomo, 332 F · Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) · Rule 26
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face