Adibi v. AIG Israel Insurance Co., Class Action 6989-05-25 (Tel Aviv District Court)
·Tel Aviv District Court·ILWarning
Approving the withdrawal of a class action over call-centre waiting times, a judge of the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel found that five authorities cited in the applicant's reply were AI hallucinations. He considered ordering personal costs against counsel but settled for a warning, and ordered the applicant to pay the insurer ₪20,000 in costs.
- Court
- Tel Aviv District Court
- Date
- 2026-08-23
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- The applicant's counsel in a class action over call-centre waiting times cited five purported appellate and district court decisions on consumer harm that do not exist. The judge considered personal costs against counsel payable to the state treasury but, with hesitation, settled for a warning.
- Outcome
- Warning
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-03
What was fabricated or misused
- CA 1972/15 Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Amit Atias — cited without a report reference; the court could not find that any such judgment exists
- Class Action (Central District) 52771-03-15 Raz v. HOT Telecommunication Systems — cited without a report reference; no such judgment found
- CA 10011/07 Israel Broadcasting Authority v. Katimora — cited without a report reference; no such judgment found
- Class Action (Tel Aviv) 1586-09-10 Cohen v. Cellcom Israel — cited without a report reference; no such judgment found
- Class Action (Haifa District) 194/05 Levi v. Bezeq Israel Telecommunication Corp. — cited without a report reference; no such judgment found
What the court said
“את התגובה לתשובה לבקשת האישור ביסס ב"כ המבקש בין היתר על "הזיות AI", היינו הפניות לאסמכתאות שנחזות להיראות כפסקי דין אף כי בפועל לא היו ולא נבראו.”
“בחנתי את הדברים תוך עיון בהפניות לאסמכתאות המיומרות שבתגובה לתשובה לבקשת האישור אשר כשלעצמה נחזית להיראות כאילו נערכה באופן חפוז ומרושל, או באמצעות בינה מלאכותית ללא ראשית ראשיתה של בדיקה ועריכה.”
“שקלתי ולא פסקתי כך לא בלי היסוס. אסתפק בהתראה ובהדגשת הזהירות הנדרשת בערי כת כתבי טענות ובהסתייעות באמצעי בינה מלאכותית לצורך עריכתם.”
“המבקש יישא בהוצאות המשיבה בסך ₪ 20,000”
Timeline
- Capital Markets Authority circular 2019-9-7 on institutional call-centre waiting times was published.
- Circular 2019-9-7 came into force, setting the waiting-time framework at issue.
- Pretrial hearing addressed the application and AIG's AI-hallucination objection.
- Withdrawal approved; the personal claim was dismissed and applicant ordered to pay ₪20,000 costs.
Why this case matters
Adibi is one of the folder's three Israeli records but differs from Ben Cohen v Municipality of Ramat Gan, where a public body used fabricated sources. Here the source says a class-action applicant's response relied on non-existent consumer authorities, and the court considered but did not impose personal costs against counsel. The monetary order in the decision was ₪20,000 costs against the applicant after withdrawal, in addition to a warning about uncontrolled AI use in representative proceedings. That matters because adequacy of representation is central to class actions; unreliable authorities can affect both the merits filter and the lawyer's ability to act for absent class members.
Practice note
In Israeli class actions, counsel should verify every authority in the response to answer before oral argument, including docket number, court, date and location in Nevo or the official court database. If the case cannot be found or the source lacks a citation, remove it and tell the court before the opponent has to raise the issue. Counsel should also check that the cited rule addresses the class-certification element being argued.
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Yunes v. M.A. Asli Marketing, Case 7669-06-24 (Haifa Regional Labor Court)2026-08-17 · Haifa Regional Labor Court · SanctionsIn an employment claim before the Haifa Regional Labor Court in Israel, the court found that several precedents cited by the worker's lawyer did not exist. After counsel conceded they probably originated from an AI sear…
- Hill v. Foundation Media LLC, No. 1:25-cv-05947 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. 2026)2026-09-29 · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · WarningIn New York federal court, Judge Arun Subramanian ordered defence counsel to explain AI-affected quotations in a response brief, took no further action, and called the episode a wakeup call. Counsel's 1 October letter d…
- G.P. v. Jose Hernandez Arevalo, No. C26-284-KKE (W.D. Wash.)2026-09-08 · US District Court, Western District of Washington · WarningIn the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, plaintiff's counsel cited a nonexistent federal case in briefing against Turo. Judge Evanson described the citation as likely AI-fabricated, compelled arb…
- Kiser v. DeSimone Auto Group, No. 2428 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct.)2026-08-27 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · WarningIn Pennsylvania, counsel for Paige and Ty Kiser cited a non-existent Superior Court decision, Com. v. Reid, for an appellate issue in a consumer dispute. The Superior Court called the authority counterfeit, suggested ch…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Adibi v. AIG Israel Insurance Co., Class Action 6989-05-25 (Tel Aviv District Court)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/adibi-v-aig-israel (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.