Skip to content

Incident Tracker / Brazil

Apelacao Civel 1032884-04.2025.8.26.0224 (TJSP, 36a Camara de Direito Privado)

·Tribunal de Justica de Sao Paulo, 36a Camara de Direito Privado·BRFine

The Tribunal de Justica de Sao Paulo, deciding a defective-car consumer appeal, found the plaintiff's lawyer had used AI without critical review to cite fabricated precedents. Treating this as bad-faith litigation, it imposed a fine of 2 percent of the value of the claim and sent the ruling to the Sao Paulo and Federal bar councils.

Court
Tribunal de Justica de Sao Paulo, 36a Camara de Direito Privado
Date
2026-08-13
Who used the AI
Lawyer
AI tool
Not identified in the record
Conduct
The consumer-plaintiff's lawyer cited nonexistent precedents generated by AI in the initial petition of a defective-vehicle claim, without critical review. The court imposed a bad-faith litigation fine under article 81 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Outcome
Fine
Penalty
No monetary penalty recorded
Regulatory outcome
OAB/SP and Conselho Federal da OAB: Court sent an oficio with the ruling to the Sao Paulo section and the Federal Council of the Brazilian Bar, invoking the OAB's 2024 AI recommendation. No disposition on record. (2026-08-13)
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-03

What was fabricated or misused

  • precedentes jurisprudenciais inexistentes na petição inicial; the acórdão did not enumerate the precedents

What the court said

“Advogada do autor que se vale de ferramenta de inteligência artificial para, sem revisão/supervisão crítica, criar precedentes jurisprudenciais. Fato incontroverso.”
Tribunal de Justica de Sao Paulo, 36a Camara de Direito Privado, p. 2
“Em arremate, sem embargo do convencimento externado em Primeiro Grau, excepcionalmente, evidenciada a má-fé do autor ao citar precedentes jurisprudenciais inexistentes na petição inicial”
Tribunal de Justica de Sao Paulo, 36a Camara de Direito Privado, p. 7
“In casu, a advogada do autor se valeu de ferramenta de inteligência artificial sem qualquer revisão e/ou conferência crítica antes de protocolizar a petição inicial para a criação/confecção de precedentes jurisprudenciais inventados”
Tribunal de Justica de Sao Paulo, 36a Camara de Direito Privado, p. 7
“condena-se o autor ao pagamento de multa fixada em 2% sobre o valor atualizado da causa”
Tribunal de Justica de Sao Paulo, 36a Camara de Direito Privado, p. 9

Timeline

  1. Appellate panel partially granted Auto Green's appeal and denied the consumer's cross-appeal.
  2. Court found the initial petition used nonexistent precedents created by AI without human review.
  3. Court fined the plaintiff 2% of the updated claim value and ordered notice to OAB bodies.

Why this case matters

Within the Brazilian records, this São Paulo decision sits between the TJPR record and Brazil TRT-2. The court went beyond refusing to consider an AI-tainted filing; it used CPC bad-faith rules to fine the party and send the ruling to both state and federal bar bodies. The source ties the result to the OAB 2024 recommendation requiring human supervision of generative tools. That makes the record useful for tracking how Brazilian courts move from finding fake precedent to treating unsupervised AI use as a professional conduct matter.

Practice note

Before filing in a Brazilian court, counsel should open each precedent from an official court database and save the citation check with the draft. If AI helped draft the petition, a human reviewer must confirm the existence and holding of each authority before protocolizing it. The OAB recommendation cited by the court made that supervision a professional expectation, not a post-filing option.

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

  • Processo 0001601-72.2025.5.20.0005 (TRT-20, 1a Turma, Sergipe)2026-08-03 · Tribunal Regional do Trabalho da 20a Regiao (Sergipe), 1a Turma · FineA panel of the Tribunal Regional do Trabalho da 20a Regiao in Sergipe, Brazil, fined a company 5 percent of the claim value for bad-faith litigation after its lawyer's AI-drafted appeal cited invented precedents, includ…
  • Apelacao Civel 0035599-44.2017.8.16.0014 (TJPR)2026-07-22 · Tribunal de Justica do Parana (monocratic decision) · DismissalA judge of the Tribunal de Justica do Parana in Brazil refused to hear a consumer appeal whose brief relied on what the decision called creative jurisprudence produced by AI, including an unlocatable Santa Catarina prec…
  • Capital Standard, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 2D2024-1392 (Fla. 2d DCA)2026-08-21 · Florida Second District Court of Appeal · FineFlorida's Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a foreclosure-related declaratory judgment and, in a separate section citing the Charlotin database, fined appellant's counsel USD 1,500, awarded U.S. Bank its appellat…
  • Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, 2026 IL App (1st) 2514622026-07-28 · Appellate Court of Illinois, First District · FineThe Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, affirmed dismissal of a Starbucks employee's discrimination charge and sanctioned her lawyer USD 15,000 under Supreme Court Rule 375 for ten AI-hallucinated statutory quo…

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Apelacao Civel 1032884-04.2025.8.26.0224 (TJSP, 36a Camara de Direito Privado)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/tjsp-1032884-04 (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →