Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United States (federal)

Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co. v. United States, Ct. No. 24-00221-MMB (Ct. Int'l Trade 2026)

·United States Court of International Trade·US-FEDPending

In 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 or its counsel, Grunfeld Desiderio, should not be sanctioned, and declare who or what, including AI, wrote them.

Court
United States Court of International Trade
Date
2026-09-22
Who used the AI
Lawyer
AI tool
Not identified in the record
Conduct
The plaintiff's corrected opening brief asserted, without citing evidence, that the U.S. Department of Commerce participated in and made factual findings in a Canadian antidumping investigation on Turkish rebar. Judge Baker said the statements were so outlandish as to appear to be the product of hallucination, either by a human being or by AI.
Outcome
Pending
Penalty
No monetary penalty recorded
Regulatory outcome
No separate regulatory disposition recorded
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-10-05

What was fabricated or misused

  • Assertion that Commerce recognised Turkish de-dollarisation "in the Canadian AD investigation on Turkish rebar" (ECF 52 at 25)
  • Assertion that the record contained no information contradicting "Commerce's factual findings in the Canadian investigation" (ECF 52 at 25–26)

What the court said

“The statements quoted above are so outlandish as to appear to be the product of hallucination, either by a human being or by artificial intelligence.”
United States Court of International Trade, p. 2
“it must also submit declarations explaining who (or what, including artificial intelligence or other software program) participated in writing and editing the brief, including who (or what) specifically authored the statements quoted above.”
United States Court of International Trade, p. 2

Timeline

  1. Court ordered the plaintiff to substantiate the statements within 14 days or show cause under USCIT Rule 11(b)(3).

Why this case matters

The suspect content is a factual claim about an agency's role in a foreign proceeding, not a fake case citation, which shows hallucination risk extends to the record and procedural history in trade litigation. The order names the plaintiff's counsel, a trade law firm, and requires declarations covering any software involved in drafting. The outcome is pending; the record will be updated when the court rules.

Practice note

Statements about what an agency found, or where it participated, need a record citation in a brief on the agency record. The Court of International Trade can require declarations naming every person and program that drafted a passage, so firms should keep a record of which tools were used on each filing. Case briefs filed below are not evidence for factual assertions.

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

Similar incidents on the record

  • 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…
  • 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…
  • Hill v. Foundation Media LLC, No. 1:25-cv-05947 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. 2026)2026-09-29 · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · WarningIn New York federal court, Judge Arun Subramanian ordered defence counsel to explain AI-affected quotations in a response brief, took no further action, and called the episode a wakeup call. Counsel's 1 October letter d…
  • Aguilar v. The Crawford Group, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-12395-AK (D. Mass. 2026)2026-09-25 · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · SanctionsIn Massachusetts federal court, Judge Angel Kelley sanctioned California-barred counsel under Rule 11 for fictitious and misattributed citations across three briefs. His firm must pay the Enterprise defendants' fees and…

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co. v. United States, Ct. No. 24-00221-MMB (Ct. Int'l Trade 2026)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/zhejiang-dingli-v-united-states (accessed 2026-10-05). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →