Published opinion, 23 October 2025 · source · PDF · 16 pages
The Corps identified each of the alleged false or misleading citations and explained in detail why each was false or misleading. Among these include citations to fictitious case law, hearing testimony from witnesses who never testified at the hearing, documents not found in the Rule 4 file, pages of the hearing transcript that do not exist, testimony found in hearing transcripts that do not support the factual contention for which they were cited, and citations to cases that do not support the proposition for which they were cited. (Id.) 6.
The cited Rule 4 tab is not an Ideal field service report, but a letter from Huffman to the contracting officer and it does not mention an Ideal field service report. Fictitious Cases and Incorrect citations c. Huffman’s counsel cited Santa Fe Engineers, Inc., ASBCA No.
Instead, the testimony discusses whether the site at present was ninety-five (95%) complete. Citations to non-existent pages in the hearing transcripts n. Huffman’s counsel represented that pages 98-99 of volume three of the hearing transcript supported the statement that, “This meant that until the pump and motor scope advanced to the commissioning phase, the main electrical feeders for dependent systems could not be brought online” (app. reply at 16).
Huffman’s counsel represented that pages 144-46 of volume five of the hearing transcript support the statement that the contracting officer “stated that completion was ‘critical’ without addressing the fact that the re-procurement contract was not issued until five years following termination . . . .” (app. reply at 18). The cited pages do not exist because volume five of the hearing transcript ends on page 116. p. Huffman’s counsel represented that pages 118-19 of volume five of the hearing transcript contain the contracting officer’s testimony under cross-examination where she “conceded she did not issue a bilateral modification creating separate completion dates” (app. reply at 18).
The cited pages do not support the factual contention for which they were cited because volume five of the hearing transcript ends on page 116. DECISION AI is known to “hallucinate” fictitious cases It is now well known that AI platforms can generate non-existent cases. See Sanders v.
Cl. 163, 168-170 (2025) (“It is no secret that generative AI programs are known to ‘hallucinate’ non-existent 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.”); Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 779 F.
2025) (stating that while “AI tools can make legal work more efficient, they also can ‘hallucinate’ – that is, they produce blatantly incorrect information that, on its face, appears truthful.”). These hallucinated cases provide the outward appearance of real judicial decisions, because they include indicia such as case names and docket numbers, real case reporters with DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. The decision issued on the date below is subject to an ASBCA Protective Order.
8 page numbers and pin cites, real courts and judges who practice before those courts, provide dates on which a decision was purportedly issued, etc. Some or all these markers of real cases may be fictitious. See e.g., United States v.