Incident Tracker / United States (federal)
Dukuray v. Experian Information Solutions, No. 23 Civ. 9043 (AT) (GS) (S.D.N.Y.)
·US District Court, Southern District of New York·US-FEDWarning
In the Southern District of New York, Magistrate Judge Gary Stein found that pro se plaintiff Isatou Dukuray's opposition brief cited three nonexistent cases, apparently generated by ChatGPT, declined to recommend sanctions, and warned that further fake citations could bring strikes, filing restrictions, monetary penalties or dismissal; District Judge Analisa Torres adopted the warning. No penalty.
- Court
- US District Court, Southern District of New York
- Date
- 2024-07-26
- Who used the AI
- Litigant in person
- AI tool
- ChatGPT (suggested by defendants; court found the suggestion had merit, plaintiff did not confirm)
- Conduct
- Pro se plaintiff Isatou Dukuray's opposition to Experian's and Trans Union's motions to dismiss cited three nonexistent Ninth and Seventh Circuit cases, which defendants attributed to ChatGPT. Magistrate Judge Gary Stein recommended denying the motions, declined to recommend sanctions given her pro se status, and warned that further fake citations could bring striking, filing restrictions, monetary penalties or dismissal; Judge Analisa Torres adopted the R&R and repeated the warning on Aug 26, 2024.
- Outcome
- Warning
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-04
What was fabricated or misused
- Clapper v. Unique Fin. Servs., Inc., 976 F.3d 830 (9th Cir. 2020) — nonexistent judicial opinion with a false reporter number
- Robinson v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 827 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2016) — nonexistent judicial opinion with a false reporter number
- Hill v. Trans Union LLC, 985 F.3d 810 (7th Cir. 2021) — nonexistent judicial opinion with a false reporter number
What the court said
“The Reply contains a disturbing revelation: three of the federal cases cited in Plaintiff’s Opposition “do not appear to exist” and, Defendants suggest, may have been generated by ChatGPT.”
“The Opposition includes three such nonexistent cases”
“Defendants have not sought sanctions against Plaintiff, and the Court does not believe any sanctions would be appropriate.”
“Plaintiff is hereby advised that any further filings with citations to nonexistent cases may result in sanctions, such as her submissions being stricken, filing restrictions or monetary penalties being imposed, or the case being dismissed.”
Timeline
- Dukuray initiated the FCRA action in Bronx Civil Court.
- Trans Union removed the action with the other defendants' consent.
- Experian filed its motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum.
- Dukuray filed opposition papers containing three nonexistent federal cases.
- Defendants' reply identified the nonexistent cases and suggested ChatGPT use.
- Magistrate judge recommended denying dismissal and warned against future fake citations.
- District judge adopted the R&R and repeated the sanctions warning.
Why this case matters
Dukuray pairs with Morgan v. Community Against Violence as a pro se warning record, but with a different outcome. Judge Stein found the fake citations unacceptable and put the litigant on notice, yet recommended no sanction because defendants had not sought one and because checking AI output is harder without paid databases. Judge Torres adopted that warning while allowing the FCRA claims to proceed. The record shows courts separating pleading sufficiency from citation abuse.
Practice note
Self-represented parties should not cite a case unless they can open the decision from CourtListener, Google Scholar, an official court site or a law library database and confirm the quoted rule. If an AI tool suggests a case, copy the citation into an independent legal source and check the caption, court, year and holding before filing.
Primary sources for this incident
- Dukuray v. Experian Information Solutions, No. 23 Civ. 9043 (AT) (GS) (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2024), Report & Recommendation (Doc. 40) — storage.courtlistener.com
- Dukuray v. Experian Information Solutions, No. 23 Civ. 9043 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2024), Order adopting R&R (Doc. 43) — storage.courtlistener.com
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…
- 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…
- Booker v. U.S. Bank National Association (In re Booker), No. 3:25-cv-01205-VDO (D. Conn.)2026-08-05 · US District Court for the District of Connecticut · WarningThe US District Court for the District of Connecticut formally admonished a self-represented bankruptcy appellant under Rule 11 after finding six nonexistent cases and invented quotations in his briefs, despite his clai…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Dukuray v. Experian Information Solutions, No. 23 Civ. 9043 (AT) (GS) (S.D.N.Y.)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/dukuray-v-experian (accessed 2026-09-08). Data: CC BY 4.0.