Courts on AI / Self-represented litigants using AI
Ferm v. Agritech Properties
United States District Court for the District of Utah · Federal district courts · UT · · No. 4:26-cv-00029-DN-PK · order
The District of Utah adopts a recommendation dismissing Ferm’s case and addresses signs that his objection was drafted with artificial intelligence. The court confines review to one specific objection, describes the remaining pages as AI slop, and cautions the self-represented plaintiff against possible AI-drafted memoranda.
- Disposition
- The court adopted the report and recommendation, dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and denied remaining motions as moot.
What the court wrote
Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.
Objection also shows signs of drafting by artificial intelligence. Federal courts often strike briefs that do not comply with local rules, which the Tenth Circuit has upheld. Instead, this order confine review to Mr. Ferm’s one meritorious objection. ... The remainder of Mr. Ferm’s Objection is “too long, too verbose, too vague, and too repetitive” to be considered specific enough for de novo review. The last 37 pages of Mr. Ferm’s objection devolves into a series of bullets points that are a clear example of “A.I. Slop.” Mr. Ferm “is cautioned against the possible use of artificial intelligence to draft memorandums.” Christoffersen v. Nucor Corp., No. 4:25-CV-00118-DN-PK, 2026 WL 1623190, at *2 n.15 (D. Utah June 5, 2026).
Authorities cited in the passage: Christoffersen v. Nucor Corp., No. 4:25-CV-00118-DN-PK, 2026 WL 1623190 (D. Utah June 5, 2026) · Carey v. Breakell, No. 4:25-CV-00108-AMA-PK, 2026 WL 2199063 (D. Utah July 30, 2026) · Hack v. Preston, No. 4:25-CV-00096-DN, 2026 WL 2279536 (D. Utah Aug. 7, 2026)
compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub
Hugging Face