HomeCasesAmazon.com Inc. et al. v. Kathy Q. Hao et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Amazon.com Inc. et al. v. Kathy Q. Hao et al.

W.D. Washington · Jun 15, 2026

WA / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityip

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent cases and fabricated authorities; Amazon identified multiple authorities that do not exist. Outcome: Brief Struck; Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Brief Struck; Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving Unidentified with Brief Struck; Warning in W.D. Washington, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent cases and fabricated authorities; Amazon identified multiple authorities that do not exist. Outcome: Brief Struck; Warning.

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving Unidentified with Brief Struck; Warning in W.D. Washington, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtW.D. Washington

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJun 15, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeBrief Struck; Warning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Brief Struck; Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent cases and fabricated authorities; Amazon identified multiple authorities that do not exist.
False Quotes: Case Law | Paired real reporter citations with unrelated or nonexistent case names and attributed propositions to cases that do not support them.
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Misstated statutory and regulatory authorities and attributed legal propositions to authorities that do not support them.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Amazon.com Inc. et al. v. Kathy Q. Hao et al.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent cases and fabricated authorities; Amazon identified multiple authorities that do not exist. Outcome: Brief Struck; Warning.
Why does Amazon.com Inc. et al. v. Kathy Q. Hao et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving Unidentified with Brief Struck; Warning in W.D. Washington, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Amazon.com Inc. et al. v. Kathy Q. Hao et al.?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Amazon.com Inc. et al. v. Kathy Q. Hao et al. summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Valve Corporation v. Rothschild et al.W.D. Washington · Feb 9, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLCW.D. Washington · Jan 29, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Rebecca Jean v. Seattle Credit UnionW.D. Washington · Jul 15, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Ward v. Amazon.com Services LLCW.D. Washington · Apr 3, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (2)W.D. Washington · Mar 26, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (1)W.D. Washington · Mar 4, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent cases and fabricated authorities; Amazon identified multiple authorities that do not exist. Outcome: Brief Struck; Warning.

Operational lesson

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtW.D. Washington

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJun 15, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeBrief Struck; Warning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent cases and fabricated authorities; Amazon identified multiple authorities that do not exist.

False Quotes: Case Law | Paired real reporter citations with unrelated or nonexistent case names and attributed propositions to cases that do not support them.

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Misstated statutory and regulatory authorities and attributed legal propositions to authorities that do not support them.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Amazon.com Inc. et al. v. Kathy Q. Hao et al.?

Fabricated: Case Law | Cited nonexistent cases and fabricated authorities; Amazon identified multiple authorities that do not exist. Outcome: Brief Struck; Warning.

Why does Amazon.com Inc. et al. v. Kathy Q. Hao et al. matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Amazon.com Inc. et al. v. Kathy Q. Hao et al.?

Which source supports this Amazon.com Inc. et al. v. Kathy Q. Hao et al. summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.