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.
Ben-Cohen v. Municipality of Ramat Gan
Supreme Court · Mar 22, 2026
IsraelEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotesadministrativetrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Municipality relied on and quoted sections (2.1, 2.3, 4.1) of a non-existent Ministry of Education Director-General Circular 5783/4(a) (1.9.2022); court found the circular and the quoted passages do not exist. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order. The municipality relied on non-existent legal authorities (an invented Ministry of Education Director-General Circular and several fabricated or incorrectly quoted court decisions) in its reply to the appellant and in court pleadings. The Supreme Court found these to be the product of uncontrolled AI use, accepted the appeal on that basis and ordered costs of 30,000 ILS against the municipality.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Adverse Costs Order; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Government lawyers face published adverse-costs orders when AI-invented regulations and cases reach pleadings; require dual-source verification.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Municipality relied on and quoted sections (2.1, 2.3, 4.1) of a non-existent Ministry of Education Director-General Circular 5783/4(a) (1.9.2022); court found the circular and the quoted passages do not exist. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order. The municipality relied on non-existent legal authorities (an invented Ministry of Education Director-General Circular and several fabricated or incorrectly quoted court decisions) in its reply to the appellant and in court pleadings. The Supreme Court found these to be the product of uncontrolled AI use, accepted the appeal on that basis and ordered costs of 30,000 ILS against the municipality.
Operational lesson
Government lawyers face published adverse-costs orders when AI-invented regulations and cases reach pleadings; require dual-source verification.
Record details
CourtSupreme Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateMar 22, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeAdverse Costs Order
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
Adverse Costs Order
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: Legal Norm | Municipality relied on and quoted sections (2.1, 2.3, 4.1) of a non-existent Ministry of Education Director-General Circular 5783/4(a) (1.9.2022); court found the circular and the quoted passages do not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Municipality cited 'Family Appeal (ש"מע) (Center) 31135-07-20' for a supposed determination about 'center of life' and third-party rights; court inspected the judgment and found no such wording or determination.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Municipality cited 'ש"מע (Tel Aviv) 13008-02-21' as holding that custody/parental responsibility is irrelevant to eligibility absent an official dual address; court found the judgment contains no discussion of dual address or such holdings.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Municipality quoted a PD citation (PD 47(5) 672, 679 (1993)) and ascribed a quotation about litigation costs to it; court found the cited judgment/quotation does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Municipality relied on citation 'מ"עע2398/12' (dated and respondent details inconsistent) for a procedural-conduct holding; court found the reference and the stated determination were incorrect/mismatched.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Ben-Cohen v. Municipality of Ramat Gan?
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Municipality relied on and quoted sections (2.1, 2.3, 4.1) of a non-existent Ministry of Education Director-General Circular 5783/4(a) (1.9.2022); court found the circular and the quoted passages do not exist. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order. The municipality relied on non-existent legal authorities (an invented Ministry of Education Director-General Circular and several fabricated or incorrectly quoted court decisions) in its reply to the appellant and in court pleadings. The Supreme Court found these to be the product of uncontrolled AI use, accepted the appeal on that basis and ordered costs of 30,000 ILS against the municipality.
- Why does Ben-Cohen v. Municipality of Ramat Gan matter for legal AI risk?
- Government lawyers face published adverse-costs orders when AI-invented regulations and cases reach pleadings; require dual-source verification.
- What does the public record establish about Ben-Cohen v. Municipality of Ramat Gan?
- 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 Ben-Cohen v. Municipality of Ramat Gan 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.