Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations
Lu v. Capital One, N.A.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · Federal district courts · OH · · No. 1:25-cv-1057 · memorandum opinion
On 2026-03-25, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed the case with prejudice and treated the repeated fake cases in successive filings as a factor supporting dismissal. A self-represented party submitted an opposition brief with fabricated or nonexistent authorities.
- Disposition
- The court dismissed Lu's amended complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
- Recorded conduct
- Lu filed a brief with numerous fake cases and citation inconsistencies, then filed another document with fake cases after Capital One identified the problem; the earlier show-cause was resolved when he apologized and withdrew or corrected filings. — outcome: noted, no consequence; 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.
to audio-only; Lu’s history of reading statements at Court hearings and when conferring with counsel via zoom, rather than responding impromptu; Lu’s apparent reliance on generative AI; and the fact that HP’s inspection of the allegedly defective computer indicated that it “has been in use and has a Microsoft account active on the computer.” Doc. 71, at 6. 5
compiled by the SafeLegalAI editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-08v0.2.2coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face