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
- GAI
- Conduct
- A self-represented litigant filed a brief using quotations that did not appear in the cited source, nonexistent or hallucinated authorities, authorities used for propositions they did not support, and a nonexistent rule or legal standard.
- 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
- 2026-09-07
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
- 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…
- James v. Conley, No. 1:23-cv-24467 (S.D. Fla.)2026-08-27 · US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Magistrate Judge Elfenbein, report and recommendation) · PendingIn the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a magistrate judge found that plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint pleaded nonexistent police-training publications that counsel conceded were AI hallucinati…
- Johnson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00855-JRR (D. Md.)2026-08-26 · US District Court, District of Maryland · WarningIn the District of Maryland, self-represented plaintiff Darrin Johnson again cited a case the court could not locate, after an earlier Rule 11 warning. Judge Rubin said the authority appeared to be hallucinated from gen…
- Potterf v. Wessels, No. 1:26-cv-10860-MFL-PTM (E.D. Mich.)2026-08-26 · US District Court, Eastern District of Michigan · WarningIn the Eastern District of Michigan, self-represented plaintiffs admitted using artificial intelligence to draft objections with fictitious or erroneous citations and an invented Supreme Court quotation. Judge Leitman d…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Bank of America v. Mapp”, safelegalai.com/tracker/bank-of-america-v-mapp (accessed 2026-09-08). Data: CC BY 4.0.