Docket entry 92, 28 July 2025 · source · PDF · 7 pages
Docket text. CONSOLIDATED OPINION and ORDER Imposing Sanctions for Use of Artificial Intelligence. Signed by District Judge F. Kay Behm. (KCol) (Entered: 07/28/2025)
Case 4:23-cv-11342-FKB-EAS ECF No. 92, PageID.2665 Filed 07/28/25 Page 1 of 7 2 As communicated to the parties off the record, the court identified a series of citations in Plaintiffs’ responsive briefings that appeared to be false citations generated by so-called artificial intelligence (AI) (with real case citations, but with fabricated quotations or explanatory parentheticals that did not accurately reflect the holding of the case cited). These citations primarily appear on page 12 of both response briefings, e.g.
68, PageID.2056, though the court did not verify every other page of Plaintiffs’ briefing at the time. The court then ordered Plaintiffs’ counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 11(b)(2) & (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the inherent power of the court, for attributing fictitious quotations to court decisions and misrepresenting the holdings of various cases in reliance on AI-generated content. See, e.g., Mata v.
June 22, 2023). At this point, it “is no secret that generative AI programs are known to ‘hallucinate’ nonexistent cases, and with the advent of AI, courts have seen a rash of cases in which both counsel and pro se litigants have cited such fake, hallucinated cases in their briefs.” Sanders v. United States, 176 Fed.
86, PageID.2373) do so in light of the well-known risks inherent in using those tools. The court also notes that the mere fact that the cases themselves that counsel cited were not fictitious (rather, only the quotes or parentheticals) does not help matters; if anything, it highlights the risks of AI usage and reliance on these tools. When a case cite is “real,” an attorney, or for that matter a judge, might see a case they recognize and assume the quote or holding has been accurately represented, where a case that an attorney does not recognize might, at least at first blush, trigger more exacting scrutiny.