ATSum 0010525-47.2025.5.03.0037
Regional Labour Court · Jul 2, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Regional Labour Court
- Record ID
- atsum-0010525-4720255030037-2025-07-02
- Observed outcome
- The court ruled the case partially procedurally valid regarding labor claims but imposed a 5% fine on the claimant for bad-faith litigation due to the use of AI-generated fake citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
Why this matter warrants attention
The court imposed a monetary sanction of 5% of the updated value of the case against the claimant for bad-faith litigation. The judge determined that the claimant's counsel used AI to generate fabricated judicial precedents and nonexistent legal summaries, violating procedural duties of loyalty and good faith.
The court reasoned that the use of AI to create fake precedents and súmulas to influence the judge constituted a grave violation of procedural loyalty, cooperation, and good faith under Articles 5 and 77, I of the CPC, and warranted a penalty under Article 793-B, V of the CLT.
Admitting AI use and apologizing reduced the fine — disclose early when citations collapse.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Employment
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
- Procedural posture
- Final judgment on the merits in a labor claim (ATSum 0010525-47.2025.5.03.0037) issued by the 3rd Labor Court of Juiz de Fora.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court refers to the use of 'inteligência artificial' without naming a specific product.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.