Skip to content

Incident Tracker / Israel

Yunes v. M.A. Asli Marketing, Case 7669-06-24 (Haifa Regional Labor Court)

·Haifa Regional Labor Court·ILSanctions

In 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 search, the court imposed a costs sanction of ILS 6,000. It is one of three Israeli AI-citation rulings recorded between July and September 2026.

Court
Haifa Regional Labor Court
Date
2026-08-17
Who used the AI
Lawyer
AI tool
Not identified in the record
Conduct
Plaintiff's counsel in an employment claim cited multiple nonexistent labour and civil precedents, and conceded at the hearing that the citations had likely come from an AI search.
Outcome
Sanctions
Penalty
₪6,000
Regulatory outcome
No separate regulatory disposition recorded
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-03

What was fabricated or misused

  • National Labour Appeal 1201 Hanoch Eli v. Ramtex Textile Industries — the court could not locate any such judgment
  • National Labour Appeal 300360/98 Tliovsky v. Atlas Manpower Services — the court could not locate any such judgment
  • CA 407/89 Tzuk Or Ltd. v. Car Security Ltd., PD 48(5) 661 (1994) — a real case, but the quoted passage on linked-company debts does not appear in it

What the court said

“בהחלטה מיום 14.7.2026 צוין, כי בית הדין לא מצליח לאתר את פסקי הדין הנ"ל וב"כ התובע התבקש להמציא לעיונו של בית הדין עותקים מלאים של פסקי הדין.”
Haifa Regional Labor Court, [12]
“לא עלה בידו לאתר את הפסיקה הנ"ל אשר "הובאה במסגרת הבקשה תיקון כתב התביעה וככול הנראה מקורה במידע שנמסר מחיפוש במערכות בינה מלאכותית, שהח"מ סמך את ידו עליה ולא עלה בדעתו לאמתו בדרך אחרת"”
Haifa Regional Labor Court, [13]
“בית הדין רואה בחומרה רבה את התנהלות ב"כ התובע אשר הביא פסיקה וציטוטים שאינם קיימים”
Haifa Regional Labor Court, [15]
“לאור התנהלות ב"כ התובע אשר "עשה שימוש בבינה מלאכותית אשר הניב פסקי דין ש אינם קיימים וציטוטים שלא היו ולא נבראו" - יישא התובע בהוצאות בסך ₪ 4,000 לטובת אוצר המדינה.”
Haifa Regional Labor Court, [31]

Timeline

  1. Worker filed the labour claim.
  2. Plaintiff filed summaries citing labour and civil precedents.
  3. Court said it could not locate two cited judgments and requested copies.
  4. Counsel said he could not locate them and they likely came from an AI search.
  5. Court struck claims against defendants 4-7 and ordered ₪6,000 total costs.

Why this case matters

Yunes gives the tracker a labour-court example from Israel, different from Adibi's class-action withdrawal and Ben Cohen's public-body filing. The fabricated material affected jurisdiction and veil-piercing arguments in an employment claim rather than a consumer or administrative matter. The court also used a split costs response: ₪2,000 to defendants 4-7 for the dismissed claims and ₪4,000 to the state treasury because counsel used AI that produced nonexistent cases and quotations. The source therefore shows how a court can sanction AI citation misuse even while leaving part of the labour case alive against shareholder defendants.

Practice note

Before filing summaries, counsel should search each Israeli labour or civil citation in Nevo or the official court database and save the full judgment. If the court asks for copies, counsel should either produce the source or withdraw the citation at once. For veil-piercing arguments, use authorities that match the defendant's shareholder status and the labour court's jurisdiction.

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

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Yunes v. M.A. Asli Marketing, Case 7669-06-24 (Haifa Regional Labor Court)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/haifa-labor-court-7669-06-24 (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →