HomeCasesArtur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc.

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.

Corpus matter record

Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc.

W.D. Washington · Oct 17, 2025

WA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Board of Trustees v. RBS Group, 2008 WL 5127215;" the Court was unable to verify the case in legal databases and characterized it as made-up, warning of Rule 11 sanctions for future fake citations. Outcome: Warning.

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

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with 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

DateOct 17, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Warning

Correction behavior

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 | Plaintiff cited "Board of Trustees v. RBS Group, 2008 WL 5127215;" the Court was unable to verify the case in legal databases and characterized it as made-up, warning of Rule 11 sanctions for future fake citations.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited "Board of Trustees v. RBS Group, 2008 WL 5127215;" the Court was unable to verify the case in legal databases and characterized it as made-up, warning of Rule 11 sanctions for future fake citations. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in W.D. Washington, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc.?: 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 Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc. 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.

Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (2)W.D. Washington · Mar 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (1)W.D. Washington · Mar 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations William McNae and Ronda McNae v. ARAG Insurance CompanyW.D. Washington · Nov 13, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Ligeri v. Amazon.com ServicesW.D. Washington · Jul 30, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Jordan Slach v. City of Battle GroundW.D. Washington · Jul 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Ward v. Amazon.com Services LLCW.D. Washington · Apr 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

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

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

DateOct 17, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Questions this record answers

What happened in Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc.?

Why does Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc. matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc.?

Which source supports this Artur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc. 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.