Incident Tracker / United States (federal)
Bank of America v. Mapp
·United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina·US-FEDPendingprovisional
On 2026-05-15, in Bank of America v. Mapp, the Middle District of North Carolina remanded the collection case and ordered the defendant to show cause within fourteen days why Rule 11 sanctions should not issue. A self-represented litigant filed a brief using quotations that did not appear in the cited source, nonexistent or hallucinated authorities, authorities used.
- Court
- United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
- Date
- 2026-05-15
- Who used the AI
- Litigant in person
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- Mapp’s filings contained fabricated quotations, nonexistent authorities, unsupported legal propositions, and a nonexistent rule or standard bearing marks of AI-generated text. The court issued an order to show cause.
- Outcome
- Pending
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Provisional — written by the court-decisions pipeline, awaiting the editor
- Last checked
- 2026-09-08
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
- Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co. v. United States, Ct. No. 24-00221-MMB (Ct. Int'l Trade 2026)2026-09-22 · United States Court of International Trade · PendingIn the U.S. Court of International Trade, Judge M. Miller Baker ordered a Chinese exporter to substantiate brief statements that Commerce took part in a Canadian antidumping case. If it cannot, it must show cause why it…
- Carter v. City of Buffalo, No. 25-CV-740 (W.D.N.Y.)2026-09-08 · US District Court, Western District of New York · WarningIn the US District Court for the Western District of New York, self-represented plaintiff Zakkiyya Carter used case law the court said did not support her propositions, after an earlier screening order. Judge John L. Si…
- Falkenstein v. Niles, No. 2:26-cv-07078-SB-PD (C.D. Cal.)2026-09-03 · US District Court, Central District of California · PendingIn the US District Court for the Central District of California, defence counsel filed materials with false quotations, misplaced propositions and representations not found in the complaint. Judge Blumenfeld ordered cou…
- Ashmeade v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 7:23-cv-04331-KMK-VR (S.D.N.Y.)2026-08-27 · US District Court, Southern District of New York · WarningIn the Southern District of New York, self-represented plaintiff Keith Ashmeade cited two nonexistent Southern District decisions while litigating discovery issues against Amazon. Magistrate Judge Reznik identified the…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Bank of America v. Mapp”, safelegalai.com/tracker/bank-of-america-v-mapp (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.