Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Ariel Mendones, et al. v. Cushman and Wakefield et al
SC California · Sep 9, 2025
CA / stateEditorial impact: career endingpro sefake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Exhibits 6A and 6C are deepfake videos purporting to capture the speech and image of Geri Haas; court found them GenAI-created and not the same person as Ex. 36. Outcome: Terminating sanction: second amended complaint struck; entire action dismissed with prejudice.. The court found multiple exhibits (videos, photographs, messaging screenshots, and metadata) to be fabricated or materially altered using generative AI. The court deemed Plaintiffs' explanations not credible, declined criminal referral, declined monetary sanctions, and imposed a terminating sanction under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128.7(b).
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Terminating sanction: second amended complaint struck; entire action dismissed with prejudice.; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Terminating sanction: second amended complaint struck; entire action dismissed with prejudice. in SC California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Exhibits 6A and 6C are deepfake videos purporting to capture the speech and image of Geri Haas; court found them GenAI-created and not the same person as Ex. 36. Outcome: Terminating sanction: second amended complaint struck; entire action dismissed with prejudice.. The court found multiple exhibits (videos, photographs, messaging screenshots, and metadata) to be fabricated or materially altered using generative AI. The court deemed Plaintiffs' explanations not credible, declined criminal referral, declined monetary sanctions, and imposed a terminating sanction under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128.7(b).
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Terminating sanction: second amended complaint struck; entire action dismissed with prejudice. in SC California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtSC California
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateSep 9, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeTerminating sanction: second amended complaint struck; entire action dismissed with prejudice.
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
Terminating sanction: second amended complaint struck; entire action dismissed with prejudice.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Exhibits 6A and 6C are deepfake videos purporting to capture the speech and image of Geri Haas; court found them GenAI-created and not the same person as Ex. 36.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Exhibit 7 is a materially altered photograph (subject stitched into Ring camera image; background/foreground mismatch noted).
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Exhibits 35 and 40 are messaging screenshots that appear AI-generated or materially altered; platform identification and fonts inconsistent between the two.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Metadata submitted with multiple exhibits contained atypical or added fields (e.g., copyright notices, URLs in musical genre), which the court found unreliable and possibly fabricated.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Other testimonial exhibits (Exs. 3, 6B, 21, 27) were found suspicious as to authenticity and reliability of supporting metadata and declarations.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Ariel Mendones, et al. v. Cushman and Wakefield et al?
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Exhibits 6A and 6C are deepfake videos purporting to capture the speech and image of Geri Haas; court found them GenAI-created and not the same person as Ex. 36. Outcome: Terminating sanction: second amended complaint struck; entire action dismissed with prejudice.. The court found multiple exhibits (videos, photographs, messaging screenshots, and metadata) to be fabricated or materially altered using generative AI. The court deemed Plaintiffs' explanations not credible, declined criminal referral, declined monetary sanctions, and imposed a terminating sanction under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128.7(b).
- Why does Ariel Mendones, et al. v. Cushman and Wakefield et al matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Terminating sanction: second amended complaint struck; entire action dismissed with prejudice. in SC California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Ariel Mendones, et al. v. Cushman and Wakefield 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 Ariel Mendones, et al. v. Cushman and Wakefield 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.