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 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Auto Test Ltd. v. Ministry of Transport
Tel Aviv-Yafo District Court · Jun 25, 2025
IsraelEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authorityadministrativetrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Petition and supplemental filing included many fabricated (non-existent) court decisions due to counsel's AI use; court noted Supreme Court precedent would justify dismissal. Outcome: Motion for Costs denied. "Regarding the petitioner, this is a case of improper conduct, to say the least, on the part of its counsel (who apologized for it), who made use of artificial intelligence in the petition and in the supplementary argument, in which many non-existent and/or erroneous judgments were inserted and embedded.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Motion for Costs denied; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Winning on merits still costs you fees if AI hallucinations taint the petition; clean filings come before good arguments.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Petition and supplemental filing included many fabricated (non-existent) court decisions due to counsel's AI use; court noted Supreme Court precedent would justify dismissal. Outcome: Motion for Costs denied. "Regarding the petitioner, this is a case of improper conduct, to say the least, on the part of its counsel (who apologized for it), who made use of artificial intelligence in the petition and in the supplementary argument, in which many non-existent and/or erroneous judgments were inserted and embedded. In accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling, there would have been grounds, as a result, for dismissing the petition outright, but I did not do so due to the conduct of the state, as detailed above, and due to the importance of publishing the tender. However, in this case, there is no place to award costs in favor of the petitioner, due to this improper conduct (as, beyond that, the petition also requested many remedies, some of which are not within the jurisdiction of this court)."(Translation by Gemini 2.5.)
Operational lesson
Winning on merits still costs you fees if AI hallucinations taint the petition; clean filings come before good arguments.
Record details
CourtTel Aviv-Yafo District Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJun 25, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMotion for Costs denied
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
Motion for Costs denied
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petition and supplemental filing included many fabricated (non-existent) court decisions due to counsel's AI use; court noted Supreme Court precedent would justify dismissal.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Petition and supplemental filing contained numerous incorrect case citations (wrong decisions) linked to AI use; court deemed this improper and denied petitioner costs.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Auto Test Ltd. v. Ministry of Transport?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petition and supplemental filing included many fabricated (non-existent) court decisions due to counsel's AI use; court noted Supreme Court precedent would justify dismissal. Outcome: Motion for Costs denied. "Regarding the petitioner, this is a case of improper conduct, to say the least, on the part of its counsel (who apologized for it), who made use of artificial intelligence in the petition and in the supplementary argument, in which many non-existent and/or erroneous judgments were inserted and embedded.…
- Why does Auto Test Ltd. v. Ministry of Transport matter for legal AI risk?
- Winning on merits still costs you fees if AI hallucinations taint the petition; clean filings come before good arguments.
- What does the public record establish about Auto Test Ltd. v. Ministry of Transport?
- 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 Auto Test Ltd. v. Ministry of Transport 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.