Apelação Cível nº 1032884-04.2025.8.26.0224
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
TJ San Paulo · Aug 13, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney cited non-existent judicial precedents produced by an AI tool in the initial petition; court treated the citations as fabricated case law and relied on that finding to recognize litigância de má-fé. Outcome: Monetary Fine; Bar Referral. The court determined that the author's attorney used an AI tool without critical review to generate and cite non-existent jurisprudential precedents in the initial petition. The conduct was held to constitute litigância de má-fé; the court imposed a procedural fine (2% of the updated value of the cause) and ordered that the decision be forwarded to the OAB for possible professional measures, reasoning that using AI to fabricate authorities undermines the integrity of the judicial debate and violates duties of probity and good faith.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and bar referral and records Monetary Fine; Bar Referral. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and bar referral with Monetary Fine; Bar Referral in TJ San Paulo. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney cited non-existent judicial precedents produced by an AI tool in the initial petition; court treated the citations as fabricated case law and relied on that finding to recognize litigância de má-fé. Outcome: Monetary Fine; Bar Referral. The court determined that the author's attorney used an AI tool without critical review to generate and cite non-existent jurisprudential precedents in the initial petition. The conduct was held to constitute litigância de má-fé; the court imposed a procedural fine (2% of the updated value of the cause) and ordered that the decision be forwarded to the OAB for possible professional measures, reasoning that using AI to fabricate authorities undermines the integrity of the judicial debate and violates duties of probity and good faith.
This matter connects fake citations and bar referral with Monetary Fine; Bar Referral in TJ San Paulo. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
Corrected 2026-11-04: see the corrections log.
Amount read from the primary court record (2026-11-04): open the court record.
TJSP Apelação Cível 1032884-04.2025.8.26.0224, voto 41332: "condena-se o autor ao pagamento de multa fixada em 2% sobre o valor atualizado da causa (fls. 55 e 65)"
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Monetary Fine; Bar Referral
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney cited non-existent judicial precedents produced by an AI tool in the initial petition; court treated the citations as fabricated case law and relied on that finding to recognize litigância de má-fé.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Apelação Cível nº 1032884-04.2025.8.26.0224?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney cited non-existent judicial precedents produced by an AI tool in the initial petition; court treated the citations as fabricated case law and relied on that finding to recognize litigância de má-fé. Outcome: Monetary Fine; Bar Referral. The court determined that the author's attorney used an AI tool without critical review to generate and cite non-existent jurisprudential precedents in the initial petition. The conduct was held to constitute litigância de má-fé; the court imposed a procedural fine (2% of the updated value of the cause) and ordered that the decision be forwarded to the OAB for possible professional measures, reasoning that using AI to fabricate authorities undermines the integrity of the judicial debate and violates duties of probity and good faith.
- Why does Apelação Cível nº 1032884-04.2025.8.26.0224 matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and bar referral with Monetary Fine; Bar Referral in TJ San Paulo. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Apelação Cível nº 1032884-04.2025.8.26.0224?
- 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 Apelação Cível nº 1032884-04.2025.8.26.0224 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.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.