LA HB 178: Civil procedure: false or artificially generated evidence

Operative sections

• Code Civ. Proc. art. 371(C): attorneys must not knowingly encourage or produce false evidence, including artificially generated or altered evidence.
• Code Civ. Proc. art. 1551: pretrial procedures address evidence alleged to be falsified, including generated by AI or altered by any means.
• Section 5: legislative intent states artificial intelligence is broad and includes suspected deepfakes.

Text

An attorney shall not knowingly encourage or produce false evidence, including evidence that is artificially generated or altered by any means ... If the court determines that evidence has been falsified, including having been generated by artificial intelligence or altered by any means, the party shall disclose this fact in accordance with Article 371. ... It is the intent of the legislature that the term artificial intelligence is broad and encompasses the suspected use of deepfakes.

Verbatim operative text; legislative text is a government edict and public domain. Full text · History

What already applies in Louisiana

The bill sits alongside rules courts and regulators have already issued, and decisions courts have already handed down, in the same jurisdiction — from the regulation tracker and the court-decisions corpus.

Rules and guidance in force

• Louisiana Act No. 250 of 2025: verification and disclosure of AI-generated or falsified evidence (La. C.C.P. art. 371)Louisiana Legislature · 2025-08-01

  Louisiana enacted a civil-procedure duty to police AI-falsified evidence. Counsel must exercise reasonable diligence to verify exhibit authenticity, disclose known falsification of their own exhibits including AI generation or alteration, and raise reasonable suspicion about an opponent's exhibits at the pretrial stage, on pain of contempt and discipline.

• Louisiana Supreme Court letter to the Louisiana State Bar Association on the emergence of artificial intelligenceLouisiana Supreme Court

  The Louisiana Supreme Court chose not to make an AI rule. Its January 2024 letter to the State Bar states existing ethical and professional rules are broad enough for AI, lists the conduct rules and Code of Civil Procedure articles that apply, confirms judges' parallel responsibilities, and notes the Court's Technology Commission and Rules Committee will monitor developments.

Decisions on the record

• Taiujuan Burches v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, et al.United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2026-05-20

  On 2026-05-20, in Taiujuan Burches v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, et al, the Eastern District of Louisiana 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 and authorities used for propositions they did not support.

• Jacobs v. TimberlakeLouisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit · 2026-05-12

  The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit on 2026-05-12 ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions or corrective action should not issue for the defective authorities in Jacobs v. Timberlake. Counsel filed a brief with one fabricated case citation, including Harvey v. Harvey.

• Burches v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, et al.United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2026-05-11

  The Eastern District of Louisiana on 2026-05-11 ordered the self-represented plaintiff to pay $500 for filing unverified or fabricated authorities in Burches v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, et al. The self-represented plaintiff filed a reply brief with two fabricated case citations, one false case quotation, and one mischaracterized case citation, including Hays v. HCA Holdings.

• In re Troylond Malon WiseU.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana · 2026-04-09

  On 2026-04-09, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana struck counsel’s objection and supplemental response, imposed a $2,750 sanction, ordered AI-focused CLE, and barred further filings until compliance. Counsel submitted a filing with nonexistent or misstated legal provisions, fabricated or nonexistent authorities and mischaracterized authorities, including In re Garcia and In re Buttermilk Towne LLC.

• Daniel Gentry v. Calvin Thompson et al.U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana · 2026-03-20

  On 2026-03-20, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana personally sanctioned counsel $1,250 and formally admonished him after he admitted using ChatGPT without checking nine hallucinated cases. Counsel submitted a brief with The brief cited nine hallucinated cases generated through ChatGPT that counsel admitted he had not checked.