California SB-1119 Companion chatbots: children’s safety.

Regulates companion chatbots, particularly concerning children's safety. Requires operators to verify user age or apply child protections to all users. Obligates operators to conduct annual risk assessments and publish a child safety policy. Mandates crisis response protocols, including notifications to parents if a risk to a child is detected. Specifies default protective settings, such as limiting interaction times and disabling late-night notifications. Prohibits the chatbot from enco...

Official materialNational StrategyOfficial source · leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

01 APR 2026 · Court Case

Saqib Kafeel v. Apple Inc., et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Reply cites a non-existent Ninth Circuit case; court notes the citation does not exist.

Court: N.D. CaliforniaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: N.D. California

29 MAR 2026 · National Strategy

California AB 316 (Vehicles: autonomous vehicles)

Amends California's Vehicle Code to regulate the development and deployment of autonomous vehicles. Defines "autonomous vehicle" as those meeting SAE Levels 3, 4, or 5. Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to adopt regulations for insurance and application approval processes for operating autonomous vehicles. Stipulates a $5 million insurance requirement for testing. Mandates human safety operators for autonomous vehicles over 10,001 pounds for testing, goods transport, or passe...

Official materialNational StrategyOfficial source · leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

25 MAR 2026 · Court Case

Jared Ashcraft v. First-Citizens Bank and Trust Company, et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc., No. 12-cv-1247, 2016 WL 3635771, at *4–5 (D. Del. June 29, 2016)" but the Court's Westlaw search returned no documents for 2016 WL 3635771; the District of Delaware docket numbers and dates did not match and no opinion on that date was found.

Court: C.D. CaliforniaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: C.D. California

20 MAR 2026 · Court Case

Dominique Lopez v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Company

False Quotes: Case Law | Defense counsel attributed a quotation to Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. that the court found did not appear in that opinion; court ordered show-cause for sanctions.

Court: N.D. CaliforniaParty: Lawyer

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: N.D. California

17 MAR 2026 · Law / Act

California SB 295 (California Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025)

Enacts the California Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025, prohibiting the distribution or use of pricing algorithms by two or more competitors if the algorithms process competitor data to set prices or commercial terms. Requires individuals or entities to exercise reasonable due diligence before using such algorithms, including obtaining written assurances regarding competitor data. Considers each authorized use, recommendation, or calendar month of algorithm use as separate viola...

Primary legal sourceNational StrategyOfficial source · leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

16 MAR 2026 · Court Case

Meriland Keith Dillard v. CBS Studios, Inc.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Jorgensen v. CBS, Inc., 728 F.2d 958 (8th Cir. 1984),' which the Court found does not exist and misrepresents the reporter citation (728 F.2d 953 is United States v. Johns (7th Cir. 1984)). Court treated the citation as a fabricated authority. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Lamon v. Godbolt, 2015 WL 13647670 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2015),' which the Court found to be nonexistent in the Central District and the Westlaw number refers to an unrelated state-court matter; Court treated this as a fabricated/fictitious citation. || Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Unauthorized supplemental brief (Dkt. 64) contained images with nonsensical spellings and text (e.g., 'Twombly/idqal + Three Bays'; 'Comedie Freeze'), which the Court identified as likely generated by AI and therefore fabricated exhibit content.

Court: C.D. CaliforniaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: C.D. California

05 MAR 2026 · Court Case

Joan Pablo Torres Campos v. Leslie Ann Munoz

Fabricated: Case Law | Court and counsel cited 'Marriage of Twigg' as authority on prioritizing parties' emotional well‑being in custody; Twigg does not exist and the citation "34 Cal.3d 926" and parallel citations provided by counsel were fabricated. Court found reliance on this nonexistent authority and counsel later admitted Twigg was fictitious. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'In re Marriage of Teegarden' with an incorrect citation/year and attributed a holding about emotional well‑being and pet custody that the real 1986 Teegarden decision did not hold; the citation and asserted holding were misrepresented.

Court: CA CaliforniaParty: Lawyer; Judge

⚠ Professional sanction imposedFine: 5000 USD

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: CA California

26 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Estate of Khallid Muhammad et al v. Tupac Shakur Estate et al

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted a Minnesota probate appeal as having "denied intervention where movants lacked legal title," but the underlying state decision did not address intervention; Court found the quotation/mischaracterization inaccurate. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs included a citation that "does not correspond to any publicly-retrievable decision," i.e., a non-existent/fabricated case citation identified by the Court.

Court: C.D. CaliforniaParty: Lawyer

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: C.D. California

26 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Samuel K. v. Winsley Focia

Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a nonexistent case 'Medical Board v. Superior Court (2022) 88 Cal.App.5th 459, 475' and attributed multiple due-process quotations to it; court found no such published case or quotations and labeled them AI 'hallucinations.' || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief quoted 'Admitting a transcript without the original recording is reversible error.' and cited People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 475; court found the quotation does not exist and Panah reached the opposite conclusion. || Fabricated: Other | The brief contained 12 quotations (11 fabricated) and numerous inaccurate or inapposite citations (some reporter citations corresponding to different criminal cases); court characterized the brief as 'peppered with inaccurate citations' and AI-generated fabrications.

Court: CA CaliforniaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: CA California

25 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Anthony Jama Hall v. Superior Court of Sacramento County

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'County of Sacramento v. Superior Court (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 305' as controlling authority; the court determined this case citation does not exist and does not support appellant's proposition. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited 'Government Code section 911.5, subdivision (b)' to support due process arguments; the court found this statutory citation (as cited) to be nonexistent or inaccurately relied upon by appellant. || Fabricated: Other | The court identified that at least 11 authorities in appellant's briefs were either nonexistent or wholly inaccurate and attributed the errors to fabrication or failure to review citations potentially produced by generative AI.

Court: CA CaliforniaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: CA California

24 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Juan Villalovos-Gutierrez, et al. v. Gerard Van de Pol, et al. (2)

Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited this case in its opposition; the court found the cited case does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited this case in its opposition; the court found the cited case does not exist.

Court: E.D. CaliforniaParty: Lawyer

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: E.D. California

23 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Zeus Realty Group LLC v. 1032 N Sycamore Owner LA, LLC et al

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's Motion contained citations to nonexistent cases; Court noted the citations were nonexistent per Defendant's Opposition but did not identify specific fabricated cases. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff's Motion included inaccurate quotations from cases; Court observed the quotations were inaccurate per Defendant's Opposition but did not specify the exact misquotes.

Court: C.D. CaliforniaParty: Lawyer

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: C.D. California

18 FEB 2026 · Court Case

EFD USA, INC., et al. v. Band Pro Film and Digital, Inc., et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant quoted Lilienthal as stating tests for distinct claims ('(1) times of services performed; (2) specific obligations involved; and (3) resulting damages'), but the quotation does not appear in Lilienthal and the case does not address settlement offsets. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant quoted Rudick as stating that failure to respond waives an objection; the cited Rudick decision does not include that quotation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant attributed a quotation about using extrinsic evidence to interpret a settlement reached in mediation (with arbitration clause) to Riverisland; the quoted language does not appear in Riverisland. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant attributed an objective-contract interpretation quotation to Leaf v. City of San Mateo; the Leaf opinion does not contain the quoted language and did not involve a contested contract. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited Milstein for the proposition 'a judgment by default admits all material allegations of the complaint,' but Milstein does not contain that language as quoted. || Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple additional fabricated quotations and inaccurate descriptions of legal authorities appeared across the opening and reply briefs, attributed by counsel to use of an AI system that altered citations during word-count reduction.

Court: CA CaliforniaParty: Lawyer

Fine: 900 USD

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: CA California

17 FEB 2026 · Court Case

In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction Litigation

Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Deposition admission that some academic articles cited by Osborne do not exist; defendants attribute those citations to AI-generated fabrications; court noted plaintiffs said citations were corrected and declined to exclude the expert on that basis. || Misrepresented: Other | Other incorrect/miscited references in Osborne's report attributed to use of an AI citation tool; court treated these as citation-formatting errors, not grounds for exclusion, and allowed cross-examination.

Court: N.D. CaliforniaParty: Expert

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: N.D. California

17 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Alejandro Rios v. Puente Hills Ford

False Quotes: Case Law | Rios misquoted language from ten existing cases; the court found the quoted language appears nowhere in those decisions (including purported quotations from Osumi v. Sutton (2007) and Fiore v. Alvord (1985)). || Fabricated: Case Law | Rios cited a non-existent opinion as "Stanley v. Univ. of Southern California (2022) 98 Cal.App.5th 151"; the court found that citation incorrect/not corresponding to an existing 2022 Cal.App.5th reporter opinion. || Fabricated: Case Law | Rios cited a non-existent opinion as "Eustace v. Lynch (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1457"; the court found that citation incorrect/not corresponding to an existing 2012 Cal.App.4th reporter opinion.

Court: CA CaliforniaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: CA California

12 FEB 2026 · Court Case

TQJ, LLC v. Jennifer Esquivel et al.

Fabricated: Case Law | Citation pointed to an unrelated case (United States v. De La Paz) and the purported Muller decision cited (43 F. Supp. 2d 372, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)) could not be located as cited; an older unrelated Muller decision exists but does not support the proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not find any case called 'Steele v. County of San Mateo' at the cited 2021 WL and the offered quotation was not found in the cited jurisdiction; closest similar language found only in an unrelated N.D. Ohio case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the cited authority; the 2011 WL citation did not match the cited C.D. Cal. decision and the referenced Lewis case is from a different district and does not discuss the proposition cited. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court was unable to find any case called 'Kogan v. Martin' or the 2019 WL citation offered for the proposition about suggestions and critiques.

Court: C.D. CaliforniaParty: Lawyer

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: C.D. California

09 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Daniel James Cummins v. Moises Becerra

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Vuong' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Arellano' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Calderon' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Pham' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous. || Fabricated: Case Law | The motion and reply contain numerous other citations that either do not exist or do not support the propositions for which they were offered; the court found these bear the hallmarks of AI-generated 'hallucinated' cases.

Court: E.D. CaliforniaParty: Lawyer

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: E.D. California

04 FEB 2026 · Court Case

Sebastian Rako v. VMware LLC (2)

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff (pro se) previously cited non-existent/fictitious cases in filings; VMware asserted those citations were likely AI-hallucinated and the Court warned against filing such fabricated case citations.

Court: N.D. CaliforniaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: N.D. California

03 FEB 2026 · National Strategy

California SB 7 (Employment: Automated Decision Systems 2025)

Requires employers in California to notify workers and their authorized representatives if an Automated Decision System (ADS) is used for employment-related decisions, excluding hiring, providing notice 30 days in advance and maintaining an updated ADS list. Prohibits employers from using ADS to violate labor laws, infer protected status, or take actions against workers exercising their rights. Mandates human review and additional information for discipline, termination, or deactivation dec...

Official materialNational StrategyOfficial source · leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

03 FEB 2026 · National Strategy

California SB 11 (Artificial intelligence technology)

Adds requirements for AI technology providers enabling digital replicas to issue a consumer warning about potential legal liabilities for unauthorized depictions, effective by December 1, 2026. Instructs that warnings be hyperlinked on AI interfaces and included in terms of service, with penalties up to $10,000 per day for non-compliance. Exempts video game replicas used solely in gameplay from this requirement. Amends the Civil Code to impose liability for unauthorized use of another’s li...

Official materialNational StrategyOfficial source · leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

29 JAN 2026 · Court Case

Ava Naeini v. Confluent Inc.

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Green v. Casa Santa Fe (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 638'; the court found the citation is not valid and was unable to locate the purported authority. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited 'Green v. Casa Santa Fe (2001) 132 Cal.App.4th 97'; the court noted this citation does not appear to be valid.

Court: CA CaliforniaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: CA California

26 JAN 2026 · Working Paper

California SB-300 (Companion chatbots).

Amends the Business and Professions Code to require operators to notify users when interacting with companion chatbots that are artificially generated. Requires operators to maintain protocols to prevent chatbots from producing content related to suicidal ideation, suicide, or self-harm, including notifications referring users to crisis service providers. Obligates operators to publish details of these protocols on their websites. Instructs operators to notify minors interacting with chatb...

Official materialNational StrategyOfficial source · leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

26 JAN 2026 · Court Case

MacroCharts Research LLC v. Tony Chou

Fabricated: Case Law | Chou's opposition contained nonexistent legal authorities; Plaintiff identified the 'nonexistent' or 'hallucinated' citations and Chou subsequently filed an errata removing them. The Court called the citations 'nonexistent' but declined sanctions.

Court: N.D. CaliforniaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: N.D. California

22 JAN 2026 · National Strategy

California AB 512 (Health Care Coverage: Prior Authorization 2025)

Restricts the use of artificial intelligence and algorithms in health care service plans and disability insurers for utilization review or management functions based on medical necessity. Requires that AI tools do not replace health care provider decision-making, discriminate, or rely solely on group datasets. Ensures AI tools base determinations on enrollee's personal and clinical data and comply with state, federal laws. Mandates periodic reviews of AI tools' performance and prohibits th...

Official materialNational StrategyOfficial source · leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

22 JAN 2026 · Court Case

That Xiong v. Minga Wofford

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply cited 'Phan v. Barr, No. 1:19-cv-01451, 2019 WL 7758773 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019)', which the Court identified as an incorrect/nonexistent citation; petitioner later admitted error and submitted a different, real 'Phan' citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply cited 'Flores v. Barr, No. 1:20-cv-00491, 2020 WL 1939565 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2020)', which the Court identified as an incorrect/nonexistent citation; petitioner later admitted error and provided a different, real citation.

Court: E.D. CaliforniaParty: Lawyer

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: E.D. California

14 JAN 2026 · Court Case

Hang Zhang v. Daniel Driscoll

Fabricated: Case Law | Reply brief contains multiple citations the Court could not locate and characterized as fictitious/hallucinated; Court declined to reproduce the fictitious names to avoid repeating them. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a purported Fifth Circuit case for the proposition that courts 'credit unopposed constitutional arguments,' but the pincite corresponds to United States v. Santiago, 905 F.3d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 2018), a Seventh Circuit case that does not support the proposition cited. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a purported Ninth Circuit case for the proposition that constitutional claims 'almost always demonstrate' irreparable harm, but the pincite corresponds to Thompson v. D.C., 967 F.3d 804, 813 (D.C. Cir. 2020), which does not support that premise.

Court: N.D. CaliforniaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Fine: 500 USD

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: N.D. California

14 JAN 2026 · Court Case

Lindalbeth Lopez Hernandez v. Leanna Lundy

Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited 'Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, No. 1:20-cv-02731-JLT, 2020 WL 2537748, at 6 (E.D. Cal. May 18, 2020)'; the court found no such case exists. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed other filings by the attorney contained similar non-existent case citations.

Court: E.D. CaliforniaParty: Lawyer

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: E.D. California

12 JAN 2026 · Court Case

Gharavi v. Google LLC

Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel included a non-existent Wisconsin case in a sworn declaration; court found counsel relied on Bloomberg Law and the error was inadvertent and not in bad faith.

Court: N.D. CaliforniaParty: LawyerTool: Bloomberg Law

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: N.D. California

01 JAN 2026 · Law / Act

2026 Chatbot Legislation — California SB 300 [URL: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB300]

2026 chatbot legislation — Passed Chamber

Primary legal sourceGenerative AI ·Data Privacy & ProtectionOfficial source · leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

01 JAN 2026 · Law / Act

2026 Chatbot Legislation — California SB 243 [URL: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB243]

2026 chatbot legislation — Signed by Governor

Primary legal sourceGenerative AI ·Data Privacy & ProtectionOfficial source · leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

01 JAN 2026 · Law / Act

California AB 1018

California legislation addressing AI systems with obligations for deployers, developers, and distributors. This legislation has been signed into law.

Primary legal sourceGenerative AI ·Data Privacy & ProtectionOfficial source · leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

01 JAN 2026 · Law / Act

California SB 420

California legislation addressing AI systems with obligations for deployers, developers, and distributors. This legislation has been signed into law.

Primary legal sourceGenerative AI ·Data Privacy & ProtectionOfficial source · leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

23 DEC 2025 · Court Case

Minjie Zheng v. ICANN

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited dozens of cases the Court was unable to locate, including some falsely attributed to this Court; Court identified earlier inability to locate two such cases. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed language to Richter v. CC-Palo Alto, Inc. and Carlson v. Coca-Cola Co. that does not appear in those opinions. || False Quotes: Legal Norm | Plaintiff quoted language purportedly from California Code of Civil Procedure § 356 that bears no similarity to the actual statute. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition to the fee motion cited authorities that were entirely fabricated or did not support the propositions for which they were cited.

Court: C.D. CaliforniaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Fine: 66129 USD

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: C.D. California

18 DEC 2025 · Court Case

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Christina Buenzli

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case and attributed a quotation to it; court found the case/citation does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent Unifund decision and attributed a quoted formulation; court found citation incorrect/nonexistent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a Westlaw citation she attributed a quote to; court found the cited decision/citation does not match and quote not found. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant cited an existing case but attributed a quotation that does not appear in that opinion; court found the quote unsupported by the cited authority. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant cited an existing opinion but attributed a specific evidentiary requirement/quote not found in the opinion; court flagged misattribution. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant cited an existing case name/year but attributed a quote and holding not present in the opinion; court found the quote absent from reported sources. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent supplemental reporter decision and attributed a doctrinal quote; court found citation nonexistent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a purported California Supreme Court decision that does not exist at that citation; court found the citation incorrect/nonexistent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a purported supplemental appellate decision with a quoted proposition about debt buyers; court found the cited authority does not exist or is mis-cited.

Court: CA CaliforniaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: CA California

17 DEC 2025 · Court Case

L.A. Housing Outreach, LLC v. Medoff

Fabricated: Case Law | The opinion notes many citations in counsel's reply brief were incorrect or did not exist; the court struck the brief and relied on this factual finding when imposing sanctions. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Green v. Healthcare Services, Inc. for the proposition that stay denials are reversed for ignoring hardships, but the court observed Green dealt with a wrongful death action and did not support that proposition.

Court: CA CaliforniaParty: Lawyer

⚠ Professional sanction imposedFine: 5070 USD

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: CA California

16 DEC 2025 · Court Case

Angelica E. Cruz et al. v. United States of America

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs' opposition cited 'Kennedy v. United States, 2022 WL 17684317, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2022)'; Defendant and the Court were unable to locate any such case; counsel admitted not checking citations and attributed it to outside counsel; Court ordered show cause under Rule 11.

Court: C.D. CaliforniaParty: Lawyer

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: C.D. California

15 DEC 2025 · Court Case

Howell Management Services, LLC v. Vashisht-Rota

Fabricated: Case Law | Three of the five cases the appellant cited do not exist; the court found multiple cited authorities were fabricated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed statutory language to Code Civ. Proc. § 724.010(c) that the statute does not contain (‘performance of an obligation other than that specified in the judgment’). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited two existing cases but the cases do not contain the language or support the legal points she ascribed to them.

Court: CA CaliforniaParty: Pro Se Litigant

Fine: 64235 USD

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: CA California

05 DEC 2025 · Court Case

In re: Nupeutics Natural, Inc.; Gladstone v. Peatross

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Motion paraphrased Rule 9006(b)(1) inaccurately regarding the court's authority to extend time for excusable neglect; Court noted the wording differed from the actual rule. || Fabricated: Case Law | AI generated a nonexistent case cited in the motion; Court could not locate any authority and counsel admitted AI produced it. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited In re Caneva for a Pioneer/ excusable-neglect proposition; Court found Caneva does not discuss Pioneer and the citation was misapplied. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Local Bankruptcy Rule 1001-2 was cited as supporting a substantive 'technical failures' rule, but the Rule actually concerns amendments by General Order; Court found the characterization incorrect.

Court: S.D. CaliforniaParty: Lawyer

⚠ Professional sanction imposedFine: 950 USD

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: S.D. California

03 DEC 2025 · Court Case

Juan Villalovos-Gutierrez, et al. v. Gerard Van De Pol (1)

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the citation “Ho v. Ernst & Young LLP, 2011 WL 7106622, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011)” to be incorrect or not supporting the asserted proposition; flagged as possibly fictitious or mis-cited. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed “Lobaton v. City of San Diego, No. 3:15-cv-1416-GPC-DHB, *2020 WL 7334512, at 4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2020)” appeared to be mis-cited or not a real/accurate authority for the proposition offered. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified “Gonzalez v. CoreCivic, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00927-DAD-EPG, *2020 WL 4437167, at 3 (E.D. Cal. July 31, 2020)” as having an incorrect citation or not accurately reflecting an order filed in that case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted “Gonzalez v. CoreCivic, Inc., 2020 WL 4037167, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2020)” was cited incorrectly or does not match the record in that matter. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the citation “Chavez v. SolarCity Corp., No. 13-cv-01797-JST, *2015 WL 1520065, at 2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2015)” to be incorrect or not supporting the explanatory phrase attributed to it.

Court: E.D. CaliforniaParty: Lawyer

Secondary evidenceHarms: Hallucination in legal filingsIssuing institution: E.D. California